Is Scientific Materialism a belief system?

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Perhaps these?

• http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm
• https://www.sheldrake.org/research
• https://www.near-death.com/science/evidence.html
• http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/Research/Research_Overview_Right.htm
• http://www.aspr.com/index.html

But of course I'm sure all of these scientific experiments performed by well trained highly accredited Ph.D level scientists magically don't count.

Thus the perpetual cycle of selective skepticism goes on and on...

Just for fun I'm going to say they don't. It has gotten beyond old having these discussions with anyone. I'll let others deal with this. I honestly don't feel like it today. My boredom is at an all time high. 

You're really no different from the rest of them you know. 

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Ya see ..

Therein lies the problem ..

Spirituality, in Its personal tests , does not adhere to Scientific Tests .. How they are structured in its present form anyway ..

Maybe, One day ... It will have tests available that can Validate, what really is already known ..

By Many ..

Mo..xx

Sorry, but I completely disagree. There are numerous cases of objectively measurable scientific tests that are done to help verify such claims, they're simply overlooked since they're typically brushed off by the scientific establishment and labeled 'pseudoscience' by definition. Plus limited funding for such research causes fewer amounts of research to be done.

Having said that, there is no perfect working theory for spiritualism as of yet, which I'll admit is the greatest criticism raised against the existence of the spiritual. However this doesn't mean that the theory of materialism can't still be debunked by such evidence.

It doesn't help the case of spiritualists when those in the spiritual community make claims like 'spiritualism is beyond science' or whatnot. That just isn't the case.

[MauriOra]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Sorry, but I completely disagree. There are numerous cases of objectively measurable scientific tests that are done to help verify such claims, they're simply overlooked since they're typically brushed off by the scientific establishment and labeled 'pseudoscience' by definition. Plus limited funding for such research causes fewer amounts of research to be done.

Having said that, there is no perfect working theory for spiritualism as of yet, which I'll admit is the greatest criticism raised against the existence of the spiritual. However this doesn't mean that the theory of materialism can't still be debunked by such evidence.

It doesn't help the case of spiritualists when those in the spiritual community make claims like 'spiritualism is beyond science' or whatnot. That just isn't the case.

Your Right ..

Cheers AK.. ..

Mo..xx

[Aquila King]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

Just for fun I'm going to say they don't. It has gotten beyond old having these discussions with anyone. I'll let others deal with this. I honestly don't feel like it today. My boredom is at an all time high. 

I'm beyond tired of arguing with people on it here as well. I miss seeing you in DA where most of our discussions were actually pleasant.

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You're really no different from the rest of them you know. 

The same could be said to you my friend. The door swings both ways.

[Doug1029]

4 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

I appreciate your contribution to topic, but the subject is not science, but scientific materialism as a belief system with alot of assumptions and dogmas.

Some of science's earlier discoveries and methodologies have been around so long and are so well-ingrained into the scientific method that they appear to be dogma to the uninitiated.  When discussing a scientific issue with a scientist, a person is discussing not just that one issue, but the whole weight of previous discoveries and reasoning methods.  When one fails to overcome this evidence (which one might not even know about), it is easy to dismiss science as dogmatic.

To facilitate this discussion along the lines you feel appropriate, could you please list a sampling of those dogmas and assumptions you are talking about?

Doug

[MauriOra]

5 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Just for fun I'm going to say they don't. It has gotten beyond old having these discussions with anyone. I'll let others deal with this. I honestly don't feel like it today. My boredom is at an all time high. 

You're really no different from the rest of them you know. 

Mr Xen..

Why do ya do it then ..

Honest. What's the driving force in you ..?

Mo..xx

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Some of science's earlier discoveries and methodologies have been around so long and are so well-ingrained into the scientific method that they appear to be dogma to the uninitiated.  When discussing a scientific issue with a scientist, a person is discussing not just that one issue, but the whole weight of previous discoveries and reasoning methods.  When one fails to overcome this evidence (which one might not even know about), it is easy to dismiss science as dogmatic.

To facilitate this discussion along the lines you feel appropriate, could you please list a sampling of those dogmas and assumptions you are talking about?

Doug

For one thing, you're compounding the words 'science' 'scientist' with the philosophy of materialism.

Materialism is just assumed.

[XenoFish]

Just now, Aquila King said:

I'm beyond tired of arguing with people on it here as well. I miss seeing you in DA where most of our discussions were actually pleasant.

The same could be said to you my friend. The door swings both ways.

I left DA for personal reasons. The older I get the less I see a point in having these endless and needless arguments. They all come down to the same bull**** in the end. I mean wtf ever happened to just living life? To enjoying our finite existence until the eternal dreamless sleep comes? No, we'd rather p*** and moan about valid this or valid that. I think children are smarter than us sometimes. They just enjoy the mystery of life. No need for a big meaning, just living. 

Yet every damn one of these threads devolve into the same ****ing arguments. 

Just enjoy life, try to make the most of it. Use science to learn new things and if spirituality gives you meaning and comfort in a chaotic world so be it. 

So long as no harm is being done. I don't really care. Drop the ego at the door and start living.

I'm done. This thread will crash and burn eventually.

[Doug1029]

43 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

Hm.. basically this is true. But it also has other dogmas, for example that nature is mechanical, that universe is purposeless, that universe is not intelligent design, that mind is not different from the brain, that there is no life after death, that there is no god etc. And another dogmas/beliefs, which make a veritable cult or creed out of it.

I think people are mistaking the fact that science doesn't need gods and spirits to explain the world for an assumption that the world is wothout puspose.

Many scientists believe the things you listed, but recognize that those are assumptions, not supported by evidence.  But there are also those who do not believe that way.  How can we resolve the issue?  We look at the evidence.

One of the questions being investigated these days is how the brain produces mind.  You have that one exactly backward.

Doug

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Mr Xen..

Why do ya do it then ..

Honest. What's the driving force in you ..?

Mo..xx

There's a middle ground. Look for it. 

[GoldenWolf]

30 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Here's some music.

 

 

[Illyrius]

12 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

Some of science's earlier discoveries and methodologies have been around so long and are so well-ingrained into the scientific method that they appear to be dogma to the uninitiated.  When discussing a scientific issue with a scientist, a person is discussing not just that one issue, but the whole weight of previous discoveries and reasoning methods.  When one fails to overcome this evidence (which one might not even know about), it is easy to dismiss science as dogmatic.

To facilitate this discussion along the lines you feel appropriate, could you please list a sampling of those dogmas and assumptions you are talking about?

Doug

I agree with the most of the post i will only say that this view of science(scientific materialism) is unfortunatelly what a mainstream science has become. A rigid citadel of materialism. A few dissident scientist which challenge the dogmas of such a creed get sneered by the rest of scientific community as is the case with Mr. Sheldrake, for example;

Here are some of this dogmas although I already mentioned some of them before;

-Nature and universe are purposeless

-Mind and Brain are the same thing

-Universe is deterministic mechanism

-Soul and aferlife don't exist

-Universe is a product of random chance and not of design

etc...

 

Edited February 28, 2018 by Illyrius

[MauriOra]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

There's a middle ground. Look for it. 

Thankyou xen ..

I not only looked for "it" 

It also looked for me too ..

It does work both ways Learned Friend..

Mo..xx

[Aquila King]

Btw, for anyone wanting to know what I mean by 'Spiritualism', what I mean primarily is 'external consciousness'. Or consciousness as a force of nature, not just a byproduct of material processes.

We understand scientifically that force fields exist in nature, such as electro-magnetic fields for example. Such fields while linked to material things (particles, atoms, etc.) are immaterial by nature itself. What I'm suggesting is that consciousness is itself one such field.

There are numerous lines of evidence that point to the notion that consciousness is not a by-product of the material brain. Therefore the next logical conclusion one could draw from such evidence is that consciousness is actually some sort of 'field'.

Again, this is just a hypothesis, though I believe it's better than the materialist explanation in light of certain evidences.

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

For one thing, you're compounding the words 'science' 'scientist' with the philosophy of materialism.

Materialism is just assumed.

Hi Aquilla

But does that mean that everyone that follows scientific discoveries is assumed to be a matrialist if they do not have a god concept. I have yet to see anyone in this thread define spirituallity without a god concept and for this subject is to be properly discussed both sides of the argument should be defined. For me spirit os how I project myself to myself and how I affect my environment and not an exterior other force.

jmccr8

[XenoFish]

3 minutes ago, MauriOra said:

Thankyou xen ..

I not only looked for "it" 

It also looked for me too ..

It does work both ways Learned Friend..

Mo..xx

The day you see the middle path will be the moment you realize all of this is meaningless, then you'll remember how to live. 

[Aquila King]

2 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Aquilla

But does that mean that everyone that follows scientific discoveries is assumed to be a matrialist if they do not have a god concept. I have yet to see anyone in this thread define spirituallity without a god concept and for this subject is to be properly discussed both sides of the argument should be defined. For me spirit os how I project myself to myself and how I affect my environment and not an exterior other force.

jmccr8

No, of course not. I was simply speaking to the tendency of some people to use the term 'science' as a substitute for the term 'materialism', thinking that anything spiritual is by definition unscientific.

This doesn't in any way mean that I reject ALL of the findings of materialist science. In fact I warmly accept most of them. It's primarily when it comes to the issue of consciousness that I take a differing stand.

[MauriOra]

1 minute ago, XenoFish said:

The day you see the middle path will be the moment you realize all of this is meaningless, then you'll remember how to live. 

I've seen the Middle path or as I call it The In Between ..

Xeno ...... It is not Meaningless ..

Far, Far, from it ..... 

It is More realistic, then this realistic reality, we see now ...

And it is ... Magikal.

You've glimpsed it .... You know ...

Mo..xx

[Aquila King]

Well, I've gotta go run some errands so I'm outta here for the day.

To anyone who might quote me it'll be a while before I'm able to respond.

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, MauriOra said:

And it is ... Magikal.

You've glimpsed it .... You know ...

[Doug1029]

2 minutes ago, Illyrius said:

I agree with the most of the post i will only say that this view of science(scientific materialism) is unfortunatelly what a mainstream science has become. A rigid citadel of materialism. A few dissident scientist which challenge the dogmas of such a creed get sneered by the rest of scientific community as is the case with Mr. Sheldrake, for example;

Here are some of this dogmas although  already mentioned some of them before;

-Nature and universe are purposeless

-Mind and Brain are the same thing

-Universe is deterministic mechanism

-Soul and aferlife don't exist

-Universe is a product of random chance and not of design

etc...

 

If Nature and the Universe have a purpose, it hasn't been discovered yet.  There is reason to believe the Universe may have a direction, that there is something that propels events toward a given outcome.  That might be called "purpose."  But so far, we don't know what it is - a force?

The brain (a physical object) produces mind.  Could that be what you're calling "spiritual?"

Soul and afterlife, if you mean an intelligence that survives death, do not have supporting evidence.  Otherwise, they are undefined and we can speculate til the cows come home without achieving a resolution.

Most of what happens is determinant.  A cosmic ray strikes a molecule in a DNA strand.  That's random.  But what happens next is determined by things like Markarnikov's Law which describes how the radicals produced will rearrange themselves on the affected carbon atom.  That will determine whether the strand remains functional, produces a mutation, or just dies.

"Random" is used as a catch-all for "everything we can't measure."  Maybe the net effects are truly random and maybe not, but we treat them as if they are random.  They're called:  the Laws of Chance for a reason.  "Random" things behave in well-defined ways.  There's also the Laws of Chaos and some others.  Most of this starts from a single, possibly random, event and proceeds according to physical laws from there.  Most of reality is defined by these laws.  Most, nut not all.

Doug

 

[Illyrius]

1 minute ago, Doug1o29 said:

The brain (a physical object) produces mind.  Could that be what you're calling "spiritual?"

But this is just an assumption, this is in no way a fact.

[Doug1029]

Just now, Illyrius said:

But this is just an assumption, this is in no way a fact.

Then where does mind come from?

I don't have a good definition of mind.

I guess the first question would be:  Can mind exist without a corresponding brain to generate it?

Doug

[jmccr8]

3 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

No, of course not. I was simply speaking to the tendency of some people to use the term 'science' as a substitute for the term 'materialism', thinking that anything spiritual is by definition unscientific.

This doesn't in any way mean that I reject ALL of the findings of materialist science. In fact I warmly accept most of them. It's primarily when it comes to the issue of consciousness that I take a differing stand.

Hi Aquilla

Understandable, and I think that for the most parts tempers flair because there is not distinction made in how references are made. I made a couple of posts earlier about some experiences so that people who may mistakenly believe that I am opposition to understand that I am only questioning the way they present their position and I think that several of us ask for clarification because of these ambiguities.

In part I think if mpre members took the time to refine their arguments we would see better discussions.

jmccr8

 

[Doug1029]

23 minutes ago, Mystic Crusader said:

 

All this about something nobody can show objective evidence for its existence.

Do you wonder that religion has such a bad rep?

Doug