Where Religion Meets Materialism

[Leo Volont]

Where Religion Meets Materialism

I had recently observed some arguments against Religious Phenomena, that none of it could be proven, and that it all could be reduced to hallucination or hysteria. They were saying that while it might have seemed real enough, it was actually just imaginary.

Well, this made me think of Shankara, the famous Hindu Sage, who had created an entire System upon one very famous example, about the Snake and the Rope. You see, at twilight a man saw a rope in his path and honestly thought it was a snake. His anxieties seemed quite real, but their cause was figmentary. Well, Shankara went on from there, deducing that the Senses had no direct connection to the Truth, and that Reality was at best inferential. The senses gave us Proof of nothing. But he went on from there in a dizzying string of positively reinforcing inferences, each somewhat zanier than the one before. We find eventually that our entire World is an Illusion. And so he concluded that Spirituality and Consciousness were our only Certainties.

Well, I think Shankara wound up his arguments a bit far too far. You see, there must be some difference between being able to Certainly Prove every article of our Perceptions, and simply surrendering it all to being of the same vague and nebulous Quality as pure delusions and Insubstantial Dreaminess.

You see, Shankara carelessly threw out the notion of Correspondance – that the Senses correspond to Reality. That the Rope, after all, does LOOK LIKE a Snake. That while the Senses cannot prove there is a Snake, they do a good job of telling us that there Might Be a Snake. This should count for something. Tell me, what harm is there, if one can’t be entirely certain whether a Snake is in our path or not, in tossing a stone at whatever it is there that lays in our Way. If we cannot be Certain, then we can at least Investigate with a clear Philosophical Conscience.

But that isn’t my point. You see Shankara created a Religious Premise from Arguments for Uncertainty in the World. That the World could not be Proved was the first building block for his Religion. Isn’t it odd that he was using the same arguments FOR Religion that are now being used AGAINST Religion.

Well, modern Atheists focus almost exclusively on maintaining that first one aspect of Religious Revelation cannot be certainly proven, and then the next and the next. There arguments against the anecdotal testimony for Miracles is quite enough to toss out ALL Historical Testimony. As the nit-picking is multiplied to curtail anything and everything, what they soon must arrive at is that nothing is certain. It is a shame that most Atheists resist much reading or they would have found that over the last few centuries in Western Philosophy, that most positives have been completely discredited. Hume critiqued Reason, and then a parade of Germans went on to pull the rug of certainty out from under everything else. We come to the Existentialists who can only agree upon the Will, and that the only Free Choice is in Suicide. We only wish they would stay alive long enough to tell us what that was really supposed to mean. Existentialism is so difficult to understand because once anybody begins to get the knack for it, they kill themselves before they explain it to anybody.

Anyway, if the Materialists are arguing that we cannot be Spiritual because of lack of proof, well, the Materialist Philosophers have already come to the same conclusion regarding Materialism.

While Materialism depends upon its Material actually Existing, requiring proofs and all of that, Spirituality is probably satisfied with its Subjective Experience, or rather, Consciousness. Spiritualism sees the Objects of Consciousness as being somewhat secondary in importance.

Now, of course the Spiritual Systems that focus so completely upon the Wonders of Pure Consciousness are very far removed from the coarser Religions that are so very rich in the sometimes controversial areas of Social and Moral Doctrines and Imperatives. While the Materialist Atheist may not begrudge the Meditater for his contemplation of Pure Being, he does begin to object when the Spiritualist begins to rattle off his inferences when he suspects that it all might lead to his Taxes to be raised.

Well, what does the Spiritualist Perceive, and to what is the Materialist Objecting? The Spiritualist sees Suffering in the World and is prompted by his inner compassion to provide some Plan for its mitigation.

Now, at worst the Materialist sees such Moral Schemes as invidious to his own Evil and Selfish Plans. At best the Materialist sees Moral Schemes as likely to do as much harm as good. While plans for doing Good for others may be tentative, his own benefits and interests are in his own mind quite certain, and he would not sacrifice the one thing for the other. So even in the best of cases, it is difficult for the Materialist not to admit to a basic motive of selfishness. And while the Spiritualist’s Experience of Unmodified Bliss may go without question, still we might reasonably wonder regarding their Worldly Deliberations once they are back in the Worldly Dimension. And we can certainly use our common sense in making any such evaluation. For instance, how often is any particular Saint correct about anything. In any active Life we can certainly begin to notice if anybody is particularly discerning and wise. In reading extensively about the Saints of many of the World’s Religions, it is not so remarkable that a great many of the stories veer away from the Miraculous simply to elaborate upon how such and such a Saint gave consistently good advise.

Anyway, we should encourage such Moral Debates in order to find the most probable and viable of Moral Solutions to our problems. But to only object that nothing can be proven is not likely to ever be helpful with anything. Does it not echo the Current American President’s stance on Global Warming… that as nothing can be absolutely proven before it happens, that his Rich Core of Contributors might as well be allowed to continue destroying the planet for the sake of all their most certain and dependable profits. Perhaps the Atheists might enjoy the irony of it, that the Religious Right has taken over the “Prove it, Prove it, Prove it” Argument, seeing that it can do more than just stifle Religious Debate. The demand for absolute proofs can stifle any kind of inquiry, for as we all know, in the actual material Universe, absolutes do not exist. Where there is always some percentage of Uncertainty or one loose variable, demands for perfect proofs only amount to obstructionism… which seems to be fine if you are of the party that benefits by the Obstruction.

If all of Philosophy has long ago agreed that we can be certain of Nothing, then we must realize that we must now move beyond these imperatives for Proof, and settle for plausible generalities.

People need to stop thinking they are so clever simply because they insist upon shutting down debate for lack of absolute certainty.

We must become Enlightened to the Great Truth Of Our Time, that Good Enough is Good Enough.

 

[ylooshi]

I found nearly the full first half of this essay of clearly fallacious opinion to be largely irrelevant and nonsensical –or at least disinteresting- so I’m just ignoring it. The other half, however, is so full of fallacy and ignorance that I could scarcely allow it to continue to exist on the internet without comment for fear that some unsuspecting and impressionable mind think that the failure of response is a tacit form of concession instead of what it truly is: reasoned minds ignoring the babbling of fallacy and ignorance.

Well, modern Atheists focus almost exclusively on maintaining that first one aspect of Religious Revelation cannot be certainly proven, and then the next and the next.

This fallacious comment is a hasty generalization at best, but probably actually a red herring since the statement precedes the remaining fallacious statements, premises and conclusions with the intent to steer the reader away from what atheists truly focus on. Atheists aren’t concerned so much with arguing that since religion can’t be “proven” it can’t be true as they are with pointing out that none of the claimants of the world’s religions have established good reason to accept their claims as factual. I’m not referring to common sense claims like “do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” etc. I’m talking about claims like afterlife, magical deities, eternal damnation, zombie saviors, virgin births, and so on.

Religious nutters like to go on and on about how atheists demand “proof” when “nothing can really be proven” and other nonsense, but they have it all wrong. Atheists are no different than theists in their demands for evidence for everything else in the universe except gods. Both atheists and theists agree that buying a used car from a salesman in a plaid suit solely on his word is a risk. Both are probably wise to demand that the care be started and taken for a test-drive. They want some reasonable evidence that what they are buying is what the claimant, in this case the salesman, is saying it is: a car that runs and drives well. They both make reasoned observations and base their purchase on past experiences.

There arguments against the anecdotal testimony for Miracles is quite enough to toss out ALL Historical Testimony.

This statement assumes that “all historical testimony” (your random use of inappropriate capitalization is strange, by the way) is based on anecdote alone and implies that there is no historical knowledge that is gathered via empirical data or testing. Moreover, the statement assumes that for those historical anecdotes that do exist, the supporting data and contexts related to them are on par with claims of those already deluded by religious doctrine and superstition who begin with conclusions (their religious superstitions) to which they seek data to support.
Finally, the statement itself is an appeal to ignorance which suggests that nothing is truly known so the claims must be true as is demonstrated by the very next statement:

As the nit-picking is multiplied to curtail anything and everything, what they soon must arrive at is that nothing is certain.

I find the ravings of the superstitious to be fascinating in this regard, whether that superstition be derived from religious delusion or from delusion in other paranormal fields like astrology, tarot, and even pseudoscience. What the religious nutter refers to as “nit-picking” is what rationalists refer to as evidence. This, of course, is a word that the superstitious despise most and will go out of their way to belittle, diminish, or otherwise minimize the significance of what lack of evidence suggests about their delusions. Indeed, the religious nutter will stop at nothing to remind us that since “nothing is certain,” his delusions must be possible. And since his delusions are “possible,” they are every bit as probable as any explanation that the rationalist can muster.

Except this isn’t true. Contrary to the Little Elf Judy in The Santa Claus, believing isn’t seeing unless you are experiencing a delusion. Reasonable certainty can be arrived at with evidence. I’m not technically certain the sun will shine tomorrow, but I’m reasonably certain it will. I’m not technically certain that shoving my ballpoint in my right eye will cause pain or a pool of blood, but I’m not willing to try it just to arrive at absolute certainty. I’m satisfied with reasonable certainty. The religious nutter will always state similar certainty with his/her claims, but not a single one can back that certainty in the way an almanac can reveal the sunrise times of the past several decades or expecting that since stepping on a nail brought both pain and blood, a ballpoint in the eye must be far worse than that eyelash stuck there last week. There are no virgin births to compare with; not a single resurrected zombie to recall from memory; no relatives in the afterlife in their FavFive or on speed-dial to quiz.

It is a shame that most Atheists resist much reading or they would have found that over the last few centuries in Western Philosophy, that most positives have been completely discredited.

This hasty generalization is also really just an ad hominem. The author hasn’t given clear example of which “positives” have been completely discredited by Western philosophy that atheists are supposed to be ignorant of and why this is relevant. But more to the point, the author doesn’t establish any quantifiable evidence that “most atheists resist much reading” or even what it means to “resist” reading to begin with.

Anyway, if the Materialists are arguing that we cannot be Spiritual because of lack of proof, well, the Materialist Philosophers have already come to the same conclusion regarding Materialism.

This is a straw man fallacy, since it completely mischaracterizes the argument that rational atheists (now the “materialists”) have regarding religion. It ignores the core criticisms that rationalists have regarding the nonsensical and superstitious claims of religion, namely that the magical claims are unsupported and that there is no compelling reason to accept the doctrines of religious cults like Christianity and Islam, particularly since the primary reasons they offer for accepting their doctrines is that their doctrines say they should be accepted.

The author fails –some might say refuses- to actually define “spiritual,” but one can assume that it means beliefs that compliment his own. Doubtless the author will now rebut that “spiritual” encompasses those superstitions outside his core beliefs, so I’ll concede in advance that he means “that which cannot be quantified in the material world.” But I decline to accept that because the author cannot quantify an experience in the material world or even because *I* cannot quantify an experience in terms of material existence that it isn’t related to matter or energy (components of the material universe). To do so is an argument from ignorance. I, like most atheists I know, have “spiritual moments” in which I find utter awe and wonder in the universe. I’m constantly amazed at the life I brought into this world that I refer to as my daughter and the love I feel for her. I’m amazed at the sheer number of particles in the universe or even the number of grains of sand on a single beach.

Yet I don’t for a minute think that because I don’t understand the electro-chemical process involved in creating the bond between my daughter and I, or that because I can’t envision each of the grains of sand in my mind as individual and discrete items, that these things must, therefore, be a result of someone’s god. And even if were to believe someone’s god were responsible, I see no compelling evidence to accept that it is the author’s or anyone else that claims to have a doctrine about a god. None of those doctrines provide any reason to accept them at face value. None allow the “buyer” to “test-drive” their claims as they must all be taken on faith. Sorry –I don’t buy my cars that way.

While Materialism depends upon its Material actually Existing, requiring proofs and all of that, Spirituality is probably satisfied with its Subjective Experience, or rather, Consciousness. Spiritualism sees the Objects of Consciousness as being somewhat secondary in importance.

Again, this is more argument from ignorance. The author would have us accept that because there remain questions and knowledge to discover about things like consciousness that so-called “spiritual” experiences are therefore outside of the material universe. He’s arguing that because there’s a mystery, his claims have more authority when they truly do not.

Now, of course the Spiritual Systems that focus so completely upon the Wonders of Pure Consciousness are very far removed from the coarser Religions that are so very rich in the sometimes controversial areas of Social and Moral Doctrines and Imperatives.

Does anyone other than the author know what this statement is trying to say? Was there a point or theme? It reeks of post-modern double-speak, but perhaps the author had a thought that he couldn’t fully express.

Well, what does the Spiritualist Perceive, and to what is the Materialist Objecting? The Spiritualist sees Suffering in the World and is prompted by his inner compassion to provide some Plan for its mitigation.

This straw man also mischaracterizes the position of rational atheists since it implying:
1) That spiritualism is limited to those deluded by religion
2) That only those deluded by religious thought recognize “suffering in the world” and are motivated compassion
3) That atheists (now the “materialists”) are not compassionate nor do they recognize suffering in the world
4) That only those deluded by religious thought make plans to mitigate suffering
5) That atheists do not have plans (or desires) to mitigate suffering

Now, at worst the Materialist sees such Moral Schemes as invidious to his own Evil and Selfish Plans.

Such an ignorant and completely fallacious statement such as this shouldn’t even need comment, but it appears that it is this ad hominem remark that the author has made. This is the conclusion of the authors fallacy throughout this poorly thought and written essay. It resides a few paragraphs above his final remarks, but this is certainly his conclusion since it reflects the ignorance of his assumptions throughout the post. The ignorant author assumes that atheists (which he equates to the materialists) find morality as undesirable or offensive and that atheists have only “evil and selfish plans.” Tossed out are the centuries of genocide and theft by cults of Christianity like the Roman Catholic Church, which murdered those that questioned why the church took whatever it wanted from citizens and governments as it amassed a fortune. One can go on, but what would be the point? It leads only to the dumbass argument of atheist vs. theist for the source of evil in the world and ignores that humanity is what drives “evil,” not religion or the lack of it. Doctrines and dogma enable evil acts and selfish plans, be they theistic or atheistic.

But the author’s bigotry and close-minded superstition will prevent him from having any opinion that shows atheists as humanists. Indeed, while I embrace the label “atheist” with no shame, it isn’t the first adjective I use when describing myself. I’m, first, a scientific naturalist and, as such, I accept that knowledge of the universe around me comes from observation and experience and not from dogma and superstition. It is my scientific naturalism and my rationalist outlook on the world that informs my atheism, not the other way around.

At best the Materialist sees Moral Schemes as likely to do as much harm as good. While plans for doing Good for others may be tentative, his own benefits and interests are in his own mind quite certain, and he would not sacrifice the one thing for the other. So even in the best of cases, it is difficult for the Materialist not to admit to a basic motive of selfishness.

One can only guess at how the author qualifies his “at best” claims above. He doesn’t give examples of what “moral schemes” he’s referring to so he could have in mind a soup kitchen or the Spanish Inquisition (which no one ever expects). If the former, I disagree with the author entirely. If the latter, I agree. Clearly his poor ability to compose his thoughts and elucidate for his audience what he actually means is problematic for the “essay.” Not nearly as problematic as the number of fallacious arguments he presents, but one that leaves anyone that wanted to come away from his post with knowledge scratching their head and thinking, “what the fuck?”

 

[Leo Volont]

Dear Ylooshi,

I wrote one essay.

You should write one essay.

Writing a dozen or more nitpicky comments zeroing in on my specific sentences here and there is simply reactive.

Can't you think for yourself?

 

[Baron Max]

Dear Ylooshi, I wrote one essay.

So we should all just believe whatever is in the essay? Just because you wrote it and posted it?

You should write one essay.

So you only respond to long, involved, convoluted essays? So I guess that makes you, what, like a preacher?

Writing a dozen or more nitpicky comments zeroing in on my specific sentences here and there is simply reactive.

But you're not going to respond to his questions/points? If your essay can't stand up to "nitpicky comments", then how can you expect anyone to believe your essay?

Can't you think for yourself?

I thought he did quit well in thinking and responding to your essay. Perhaps you should think about it a little yourself. Or better still, think about your own essays more BEFORE you post them and invite comments.

Baron Max

 

[ylooshi]

Dear Ylooshi,

I wrote one essay.

You should write one essay.

Writing a dozen or more nitpicky comments zeroing in on my specific sentences here and there is simply reactive.

Can't you think for yourself?

Mr Max pretty well summed up my thoughts, however, I will add that I've written many essays. This is one of the reasons I'm qualified to criticize yours. I'm assuming you wanted criticism since you posted your fallacious attempt at an essay in a forum that is dominated by the very atheists you attempt very poorly to denigrate. Instead, you've denigrated yourself through grammatical error and inconsistency as well as heavy reliance of logical fallacy.

Finally, Mr. Max's point that you do not chose to respond to my criticisms directly, choosing instead to rely on yet another hasty generalization by calling them "nitpicky comments" rather than dealing with them as the genuine and fair criticisms they are.

This is sad since this is a discussion forum and not an essay forum. Clearly you require a blog not a discussion forum. Clearly you aren't interested in discussion, you would rather have a soapbox to stand upon as long as it is one that allows you to announce your opinion while denigrating that of others.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

Just a few comments that jumped out at me since Ylooshi did such an excellent demolition job with his critique that left you unable to respond in any meaningful manner.

That the World could not be Proved was the first building block for his Religion.

Classic logical fallacy – even if true the absence of proof for something is not evidence or proof for something else. It would still not give any credence to religious concepts.

The Spiritualist sees Suffering in the World and is prompted by his inner compassion to provide some Plan for its mitigation.

As does the materialist – both are equally motivated to survive.

Now, at worst the Materialist sees such Moral Schemes as invidious to his own Evil and Selfish Plans.

You seem to have this backwards. The religionists create their own moral schemes as a set of rules they believe will allow them to cheat death through an ultimate reward of a life beyond death – a purely selfish motivation. The materialists have no such fantasies and follow moral codes that maximize finite survival for all including his own. There are no true altruists.

While plans for doing Good for others may be tentative, his own benefits and interests are in his own mind quite certain, and he would not sacrifice the one thing for the other.

History shows that by building a cooperative community all benefit. This is the value of reason – the materialist methodology. The spiritualist despite reason attempts to impose outdated mythologies on modern needs for their selfish desires to achieve their fantasy of immortality.

The demand for absolute proofs can stifle any kind of inquiry, for as we all know, in the actual material Universe, absolutes do not exist. Where there is always some percentage of Uncertainty or one loose variable, demands for perfect proofs only amount to obstructionism… which seems to be fine if you are of the party that benefits by the Obstruction.

And even if true why would that give any legitimacy for religionists to assert with certainty that their claims contain any truth?

If all of Philosophy has long ago agreed that we can be certain of Nothing, then we must realize that we must now move beyond these imperatives for Proof, and settle for plausible generalities.

And yet again the same basic logical fallacy – the absence of proof for something gives no legitimacy for asserting something else.