Dr. Jeffrey Long’s, God and the Afterlife, Science & Spirituality Have Collided |327|

Hi all,

Interesting posts about materialism.

My co-autor of The Self Does Not Die, Titus Rivas, pointed me at a statement (somwhere....) by Arouet namely that there is much evidence for a materialistic world view. In contrast to that statement we think that there is no unequivocal evidence at all for such a world view. This is what we say in Chapter 10 of our book:

Michael Martin and Keith Augustine wrote in their book The Myth of an Afterlife:
Dualists are thus forced to make a difficult choice: either retain a belief in personal survival at the expense of ignoring or dismissing the implications of our best evidence, or accept those implications at the expense of acknowledging that the prospects for personal survival are extremely dim.

We find this claim to be untenable because there is absolutely no evidence that would unequivocally and convincingly confirm the materialistic worldview.
All the neurological and medical evidence that materialists such as Martin and Augustine have presented— demonstrating that the mind totally depends on the brain— can easily fit into a dualistic (or more broadly: nonmaterialistic) worldview. This point even applies to cases of extreme dysfunction in mental processes due to neurological disorders, diseases, or lesions (Beauregard, 2007; James, 1898). Within a dualistic- interactionistic worldview, mind and brain interact.
This dynamic means that the brain happens to exercise an undeniable influence on the mind and vice versa without meaning that the mind is suddenly reducible to the brain or the other way around. This inflluence can occasionally also have very negative consequences, as we see, for instance, in an illness like dementia.
Sometimes the influence of the brain on the mind is particularly bizarre, as demonstrated not only in experiments with so-called “split-brain” patients but also in the consequences of alcohol or narcotics use. Still, not a single case involving the influence of the brain on the mind “therefore,” necessarily, proves that that mind, as such, is the product of the brain or that that mind must be completely dependent on the brain (Rivas, 2004). Similarly, there is no proof that the influence of consciousness on brain processes means that no brain processes exist that are not paired with consciousness. Mutual interaction is just not the same
thing as complete dependence.
This representation of matters is not the ad hoc solution of desperate dualists who do not dare confront certain facts but, rather, is an integral component of the dualistic-interactionistic worldview. As philosopher of science and survivalist Neal Grossman stated in an excellent 2008 letter to the editor in the Journal of Near- Death Studies:

William James (1898) showed, more than a hundred years ago, that (1) the most that the facts of neurology can establish is a correlation between mental states and brain states and (2) correlation is not causation. The data of neuroscience will always be neutral with respect to the hypotheses of (1) causation or materialism and (2) what James called “transmission,” the hypothesis that the brain merely transmits an already existing consciousness.
Whereas the “proofs” of materialism can be excellently placed within dualistic interactionism, the evidence that we have presented in this book is without a doubt incompatible with a materialistic theory. For this reason, materialists rationalize away or negate this evidence as much as possible. Examples of this tendency can be seen in the recent arguments by Gerald Woerlee in his 2013 book, Illusory Souls, and in the 2013 article, “Occam’s Chainsaw” by Jason Braithwaite and Hayley Dewe.
------------

By the way, I fully agree with Gabriel's latest posts... Smithy
 
Hi all,

Interesting posts about materialism.

My co-autor of The Self Does Not Die, Titus Rivas, pointed me at a statement (somwhere....) by Arouet namely that there is much evidence for a materialistic world view. In contrast to that statement we think that there is no unequivocal evidence at all for such a world view.

I very much doubt that you read a quote of mine that stated I thought there was unequivocal evidence in favour of materialism! It may have been something about evidence showing the close correlation between brains and minds, but there is no way I would have said it was unequivocal! I probably said that the evidence for the non brain hypothesis still suffered from reliability issues, but I likely also would have said it might get there (in that post or many others).

If you're going to use a post of mine as an example please use my actual post.

As for Gabriel's diatribes: what he presents is a charicature. Very little of it represents my actual views or positions. It is superficial stereotyping and repeating it over and over again is pure rhetoric, with the effect of closing ranks, closing minds and discouraging any actual dialogue.




By the way, I fully agree with Gabriel's latest posts... Smithy[/QUOTE]
 
As for Gabriel's diatribes: what he presents is a charicature. Very little of it represents my actual views or positions. It is superficial stereotyping and repeating it over and over again is pure rhetoric, with the effect of closing ranks, closing minds and discouraging any actual dialogue.
On the contrary, real dialogue is to be encouraged. Stonewalling, legalism and evidential high jumps are what I object to, especially when they masquerade as a quest for mutual understanding.
"To successfully debate with a skeptic you must first find out what he/she believes..." Over to you, Arouet.
 
Last edited:
On the contrary, real dialogue is to be encouraged. Stonewalling, legalism and evidential high jumps are what I object to, especially when they masquerade as a quest for mutual understanding.
"To successfully debate with a skeptic you must first find out what he/she believes..." Over to you, Arouret.

Over to me for what? You've made a bunch of vague generalizations and assertions without elaboration or justification. You're implication is clear that you believe i stonewall, engage in legalism (whatever that means, outside the context of my profession), and offer evidential high jumps. But you don't elaborate or provide your reasoning.

I'm not in the mood to guess. If you have a specific critique that you are prepared to justify then let's discuss it without the rhetoric.
 
You and David seem to get your point across so well (as well as other posters here) Some of the stuff I want to say when I get in to "debates" with other people, but end up stumbling over my words and forgeting what I was going to say or finding words. Is there any tips you guys have?:)
It's easy enough. If someone doesn't share your 'quest for truth', call their 'quest for truth' promissory.
 
Over to me for what? You've made a bunch of vague generalizations and assertions without elaboration or justification. You're implication is clear that you believe i stonewall, engage in legalism (whatever that means, outside the context of my profession), and offer evidential high jumps. But you don't elaborate or provide your reasoning.

I'm not in the mood to guess. If you have a specific critique that you are prepared to justify then let's discuss it without the rhetoric.
It was interesting that you thought my post was aimed at you exclusively, rather than lifestyle scepticism as a tendency. Legalism is the application of doubt to a situation that doesn't warrant it, with the sole aim of muddying the water. It's about loopholes, not objective truth.

The point is skeptics feel they inhabit the intellectual high ground, without stating what that ground is. In this way they negotiate an advantage which they are not required to support, and survive on prodding what they perceive as the opposition's soft parts without inviting an equivalent response. How often, for example, do this forum's resident skeptics come out as philosophical materialists? Never to my recollection. Instead they hide behind a philosophical wall of their own making and throw rocks. In this way all supposition is naivety, and any stance subject to ridicule. So what are your beliefs, Arouet, and if you're not certain, what gives you the philosophical insight to counter the sloppy thinking that routinely raises your ire?
 
Last edited:
I very much doubt that you read a quote of mine that stated I thought there was unequivocal evidence in favour of materialism! It may have been something about evidence showing the close correlation between brains and minds, but there is no way I would have said it was unequivocal! I probably said that the evidence for the non brain hypothesis still suffered from reliability issues, but I likely also would have said it might get there (in that post or many others).

If you're going to use a post of mine as an example please use my actual post.

As for Gabriel's diatribes: what he presents is a charicature. Very little of it represents my actual views or positions. It is superficial stereotyping and repeating it over and over again is pure rhetoric, with the effect of closing ranks, closing minds and discouraging any actual dialogue.
]

Sorry, Arouet, I have to apologize. I did not quote you but that Tikib character. Sometimes it is hard to again find some statement, so somehow it was mixed up. Again, sorry.

In any case, I have given here our views on materialism. We truly think that philosphical materialism has no leg to stand on. In that regard I support Gabriel's posts.
 
Let's forget about how mysterious and bizarre the physical world is turning out to be.

If we willfully underestimate 'the material' we can poke fun at the bulk of academia, for they believe billiard balls whizz round in their brains! lol.
 
Last edited:
Lets forget about how mysterious and bizarre the physical world is turning out to be.

If we willfully underestimate 'the material' we can poke fun at the bulk of academia, for they believe billiard balls whizz round in their brains! lol.

Perhaps a definition of what matter is would help us understand what "the material" actually is?

It is merely defined by its lack of mental properties?
 
Good luck!

Possibly not to a physicalist. Isn't that the whole point?

Well if matter might have mental properties, we're talking about something other than what materialists usually mean.
 
What do you think they mean then?

Seems clear? That matter has no mental properties.

Outside of that it seems things get rather shaky, given it's not clear that matter at the bottom level has a set spatio-temporal location.

As Chomsky notes:

"There seems to be no coherent doctrine of materialism and metaphysical naturalism, no issue of eliminativism, no mind-body problem."

-Language and Problems of Knowledge
 
Hang on, you were bemoaning the fact that skeptics don't embrace agnosticism enough on the previous page.
Agnosticism doesn't mean default to materialism. It means you don't believe there's sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.
 
Agnosticism doesn't mean default to materialism. It means you don't believe there's sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion.

I agree.

The irony of being lectured on agnosticism my a practicing Catholic is not lost on me however.
 
Back
Top