Materialism a.k.a. physicalism
My assertion in "Epiphany vs materialism" that 93% of scientists believe God is a delusion conjured up by the brain must have come from Hagerty’s work. Theologian Vincent Smiles corrects it in his comment to my post and he emailed a fuller comment:
Elaine Howard Ecklund (sociologist)
wrote a book (Science vs. Religion,
2010) about scientists and faith (based on numerous interviews with a wide
variety of them). She showed (among other things) that while it is true
that a far higher percentage of scientists (53%) have no faith in God compared
with Americans at large (16%), it is also the case that scientists “self-select
… from backgrounds where religion was practiced only weakly” (26).
Among the non-believing scientists
interviewed, “it is not the engagement with science itself that leads them away
from religion” (17).
I believe this; it seems more credible than the 93% figure. Vincent
added:
As I’m sure you know, we cannot take
scientists & philosophers like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, Wilson, etc. as
representative of science or scientific thinking. Their reasoning is
notoriously bad when it comes to religion, not to say profoundly biased.
Most scientists are not in their camp.
I have written about Richard Dawkins (The God Delusion), Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchins (God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons
Everything). Harris’ views I find agreeable, quite a contrast to Hitchins’.
One
materialist
My abiding aim being to challenge hardened assumptions, I take on
atheists and agnostics as well as traditionalist Christians. In a friendly
discussion with one atheist, I tried to find some common ground by asking whether
we could agree on defining spiritual reality as consciousness, which
includes thoughts, ideas, decisions, beliefs, affect, attitudes, intentions.
He said No, that's all material reality. There is no
immaterial reality—nothing beyond material reality exists. It's not just
that the physical generates the spiritual, he declared, it's that there is no
non-physical reality.
According to this individual, science says that everything
we perceive is due to the brain; thoughts and feelings are perceived and generated
by the brain. Everything we perceive is material reality, even if we don't
have a scientific explanation for it yet. There is no difference between the
mind and the brain.
This seems extreme, even for atheists.
Going on with the materialist position, phenomena
like psychic events (the truly inexplicable ones) and the
findings of quantum mechanics—a human intention determining a physical outcome—may
seem to refute materialist belief but we trust that the explanation just hasn't
been found yet.
I say materialism is not the inescapable conclusion of
science but the materialist interpretation of science. I’d like to know
if other atheists whom this reaches agree with him. When I read or listen to
scientists, notably in interviews with KristaTippett, I try to infer their position on this. I would expect Sam Harris,
to reject materialist belief, for instance.
Often I hear scientists profess disbelief in a personal God.
I also do not believe in a personal God as they define it—a humanlike
individual—but I have a deep personal relationship with God. Daily I seek
spiritual guidance and receive it. Like the subjects in William James’ study (previous post), I
cannot be shaken from my conviction, because my experience of spiritual reality suffuses my life.
As I stated in God Is
Not Three Guys in the Sky, atheists take their image of God from the popular but pinched
Christian image—a humanlike personality. I join atheists in rejecting
this external deity. The esteemed theologian Catherine LaCugna in her acclaimed work, God for Us: The Trinity and Christian Life,
draws a relevant distinction: God is not a person, that is, an individual; but
God is personal, or loving and caring.
I consider LaCugna’s distinction useful to all thoughtful religious believers. Especially those who join me in saying, when we hear atheists describe the god they don’t believe in, “I don’t believe in that god either.”
I consider LaCugna’s distinction useful to all thoughtful religious believers. Especially those who join me in saying, when we hear atheists describe the god they don’t believe in, “I don’t believe in that god either.”
My profession of belief
and disbelief
I am an atheist because I do not believe in a god, an external deity, a
certain God-image, a god-man Jesus or any other idol.
I revere Jesus as the manifestation of
God to Christians, the Way-Shower whose unique spiritual teachings resound through
earthly time and space.
Although an atheist, I am not a
materialist because I believe in spiritual reality, which materialists deny.
Next time—the views of Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan. After
that, more from Eben Alexander.
Comments
Happy New Year! I've commented here before on a few occasions. I do not agree with your pov, but I sympathize with it. It would seem that you agree with theists of many stripes in opposing the total reducibility of consciousness to matter/energy. Nevertheless, you deny that the Divine (universal consciousness) is not transcendent (beyond space and time) and not personal
("having" intellect and will).
Why?
I'm curious about something. What is your position on Christian mysticism that doesn't reject orthodoxy? Do you believe that mysticism and dogma are incompatible in principle?
you deny that the Divine is
transcendent and personal.
I presume you picked up on that.
Thanx!
I think I agree with both of you - just on different scopes. When your friend says that what you qualify as 'spiritual reality' is entirely physical, I wouldn't say he is *wrong*. Consciousness is almost certainly, though we don't yet know the details, a physical process, as are all the other things you mentioned.
But - that's a stupid way to talk about the world. It'd be like trying to discuss the nature of love with someone and them responding with "love is just a bunch of neurochemicals." While such a statement is technically true, it doesn't account for the meaning and experience of love as it relates to being a human and the human experience.
Though I don't particularly like the word 'spiritual' because it tends to bring with it supernatural associations, it's a very important part of a person and deserves talking about, not dismissal.
I dunno, definitions are particularly difficult for these kinds of discussions I find. But I think the attributes you listed are a good description of what makes up the individual as spiritual, but it certainly does not exist independent of the physical either.