What we must accept if we accept materialism

This is another topic branching off from robinrohan's thread What we must accept if we accept evolution.The argument in that thread goes as follows:A. The theory of evolution implies an entirely physical universe
B. If you accept that the universe is entirely physical, then you must also accept the following:1. Materialism
2. Atheism
3. Determinism
4. NihilismNow any discussion about evolution seems to end up mired in obscure arguments about Judaeo-Christian mythology that, to a third-generation atheist like myself, are as interesting as watching paint dry on the Forth Bridge. So in this thread I'd like to ignore the theory of evolution and just ask the question:If you accept that the universe is entirely physical, then you must accept ... [insert robinrohan's 4 noble truths].---------------------------------------------------------------------My answers to this question would be as follows:1. Materialism
YES. By definition.2. Atheism
YES. If the universe is entirely physical, then there's no room for supernatural beings.3. Determinism.
NO. Not all physical processes are deterministic. The fact that an event has physical causes doesn't necessarily mean that the process that lead to it was deterministic. Therefore the question of whether humans have free will is still an open question even if you accept that the universe is entirely physical.4. Nihilism
I'm not really sure what I'm being asked to accept here.(a) That there is no supernatural being with a hidden plan? YES, I'd accept that definition. Clearly there aren't any supernatural beings.(b) That human beings can't make objective judgements about moral issues? NO, I wouldn't accept that definition. How does it follow from an acceptance that the universe is entirely physical?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

What does it mean to accept any of these "isms?"If I go through life without thinking of these "isms" and I don't know the definition of them, what constitutes acceptance?

---

There are two ways of spreading light: to be the candle or the mirror that reflects it. -Edith Wharton

I'm not sure whether I agree with some of this. Is materialism the belief that all that exists is the physical universe? Or is it the belief that all one can know about (without special revelation) is the physical universe?It seems that one can accept the existence of a deity and of an immortal soul but be a materialist in practice. (I'm thinking of those Christians who are practicing scientists, for example.)But then, I am coming into the middle of a conversation that I was not following, so maybe this was already discussed.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I agree. Not to be (merely) contrary, but this presumes that God must be supernatural and cannot be physical.It's a mighty big multiverse...if God is the Creator of our universe and, either directly or by unfolding, of us, is it necessary that God be supernatural in the usual, immaterial sense of the word? Would it not suffice that God have sufficient mastery of physical laws and processes so as to accomplish what we ascribe to Her?I'm not advancing this as my belief, merely exploring the logical possibilities. I agree. I agree that nihilism has to be more precisely defined before I can declare a stance. As to (a), see my logical quibble with supernatural above; as to (b), I'm not sure that even subjective values and purposes should be so readily dismissed. If we have free will, then our decisions about values and moral choices become even more important, both to ourselves and to others. If we are Creators of our own moral universes, is that meaningless?

I agree. Not to be (merely) contrary, but this presumes that God must be supernatural and cannot be physical.It's a mighty big multiverse...if God is the Creator of our universe and, either directly or by unfolding, of us, is it necessary that God be supernatural in the usual, immaterial sense of the word? Would it not suffice that God have sufficient mastery of physical laws and processes so as to accomplish what we ascribe to Her?I'm not advancing this as my belief, merely exploring the logical possibilities. I agree. I agree that nihilism has to be more precisely defined before I can declare a stance. As to (a), see my logical quibble with supernatural above; as to (b), I'm not sure that even subjective values and purposes should be so readily dismissed. If we have free will, then our decisions about values and moral choices become even more important, both to ourselves and to others. If we are Creators of our own moral universes, is that meaningless?

These issues are being discussed ad nauseam in the parallel threads. The question posed by this thread is:Assuming the universe is entirely physical, what other things can we validly say about the universe?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I agree. Not to be (merely) contrary, but this presumes that God must be supernatural and cannot be physical.It's a mighty big multiverse...if God is the Creator of our universe and, either directly or by unfolding, of us, is it necessary that God be supernatural in the usual, immaterial sense of the word? Would it not suffice that God have sufficient mastery of physical laws and processes so as to accomplish what we ascribe to Her?I'm not advancing this as my belief, merely exploring the logical possibilities. I agree. I agree that nihilism has to be more precisely defined before I can declare a stance. As to (a), see my logical quibble with supernatural above; as to (b), I'm not sure that even subjective values and purposes should be so readily dismissed. If we have free will, then our decisions about values and moral choices become even more important, both to ourselves and to others. If we are Creators of our own moral universes, is that meaningless?

I don't know. What do you think?

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

Yes, I suppose a physical God would be allowable in this entirely physical universe. But that would raise all kinds of interesting theological and moral problems. I agree. I wasn't really dismissing subjective values and purposes, just standing up for our ability to make objective judgements about moral issues. A nihilist would argue that because there is no absolute, unchanging ground for our morality (e.g. a God), then it's impossible to find objective criteria for making judgements.

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

I knew you weren't, JM, and I almost edited my post when I realized I seemed to be implying that you were. I was intending to challenge the notion, as you well describe it, that "A nihilist would argue that because there is no absolute, unchanging ground for our morality (e.g. a God), then it's impossible to find objective criteria for making judgements." You were already doing a good job with a direct challenge to the impossibility of finding objective criteria on our own, and I wanted to cover the base of defending subjectivity. Indeed it would--the questions of whether a God should necessarily be considered good, or be worshipped, immediately come to mind.Lately, I've been trying to consider the logical possibilities of a God without reference to definitional constraints extant religions have imposed--again, not because I feel compelled to believe in one (I'm an agnostic restrained from atheism by intellectual will, i.e., I see no grounds for certainty), but as an exercise in open-minded logic: Must God be supernatural? Must God be omnipotent and/or omniscient? Must God be good? Must God love us?I find it an intriguing project, but I don't want to derail your thread. If anyone wants to discuss those ideas at any greater length, I'd be happy to join or start a new thread.

Can you define what constitutes "material" from a scientific perspective, specifically from what we know from quantum physics?

Everything we can observe through our senses, or through extensions to our senses like scientific instruments.Materialism for the purpose of this thread means the belief that nothing exists apart form the things we can observe and interact with. Specifically it denies that this material world can be affected by sentient beings that can't be observed, i.e. it holds to the Epicurean principle that "nothing can touch body but body" (Lucretius, De Rerum Natura).This message has been edited by JavaMan, 02-08-2006 12:24 PM

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

couple of points.....first, plenty of people have observed spiritual beings, whether angels, the presence of God, etc,...so that makes those things material by your definition.Secondly, we know different thought patterns, such as worry, can have bodily effects, and so according to your definition, thoughts and patterns are material since they can "touch" body.Imo, you have not got a good working definition of material. Let me ask you this. Prior to observation are particles material? Is the wave function material?

Observations have to be replicable before they can be considered reliable. What we experience in our minds as thoughts are observable physical and electrical phenomena. You're confusing whether something has been observed with the quality of being observable. Particles and electromagnetic waves are observable, therefore they are part of the material world.--Percy