Bad Materialism

In various threads there have been various discussions about what materialism is, and isn’t, and various definitions have been proposed and cited.  In this thread I want to ask a different question, addressed specifically to those who regard “materialism” as a bad thing.  William, for instance, has said that “materialism” was “disproven” in the 18th century, yet laments

the spread of an 18th century myth in our public school system and in our culture at large.

So here is my question: if you are against something called “materialism” and see it as a bad thing (for whatever reason), what is your definition of the “materialism” you are against?

467 thoughts on “Bad Materialism

  1. I’d like to know what evidence anti-materialists have for their belief that 18th-century metaphysics plays any role at all in public education, media, culture, etc. And I’d like to know what evidence they have for their belief that “materialism” — in the sense of “18th-century materialistic metaphysics” — is the cause of any of the social ills that they lament.

    (Aside: Greenblatt’s The Swerve is an excellent, well-researched and highly readable account of the rediscovery of Epicureanism in the 15th century and its impact on European culture. I myself didn’t like the “culture war” spin he put on it, but it’s a good book nevertheless.)

  2. Very briefly stated: Epicurean metaphysics is the view that what is fundamentally or ultimately real are “atoms”, understood here as basically like microscopic billiard balls, and the empty space in which they move. (Interestingly, the concept of “empty space” was so antithetical to Greek, Roman, and Christian thought that it was extremely difficult for atomism to attract adherents.) The atoms move by necessity, except insofar as they randomly, by sheer chance, “swerve” and strike other atoms. Sometimes the atoms bounce off of each other, and sometimes they connect. Since there are infinitely many atoms, drifting in infinite space and time, all possible combinations of atoms are realized at some point in the history of the universe — including us.

  3. So can you give me a Cliff Notes precis of “18th century metaphysics”? I’d like to know whether it’s what William really is referring to (and William, perhaps you could confirm?)

    ETA: Oops crossposted – thanks KN!

  4. Yes, that’s what I thought it was. William: is this the “18th century myth” that you (rightly) consider has been “disproved” (or “falsified” rather) by later discoveries?

    If so, what is your evidence that people still hold to it?

    If not, what did you have in mind?

  5. Which materialism? Scientific materialism? Cultural materialism (e.g. Marvin Harris)? Economic materialism? Historical materialism? Dialectical materialism (e.g. Georgi Plekhanov)? Etc.

    Materialism is not just an ideology limited to the field of philosophy of mind. KN’s reduction of materialism to empiricism or ‘Epicurean metaphysics’ falls short, just as his ‘epistemological verificationism’ is still disenchanted and disenchanting. What do you believe in or accept as ‘real’ other than matter, the material world?

    You need to realise that the DI is as much against ‘materialism’ as a cultural ideology as it is against reducing Mind to matter (e.g. George Gilder, co-founder of the DI – http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2012/09/the-materialist-superstition.html). And don’t forget the combination of terms at the heart of the DI’s IDism – Centre for Science and CULTURE.

    As an aside: I really don’t see why you folks pay so much attention to WJM, other than that he is so active here at TSZ. He doesn’t speak for the IDM. His ‘theism’ is an eclectic mix of confusion. And he doesn’t really seem to understand IDT, as the DI promotes it. So, conversing with him is like following a straw man to water.

    Sometimes it seems like conversing with IDists is an excuse for atheists to not face more intelligent and coherent thinkers, which might make one contemplate more deeply their understanding in science, philosophy, theology/worldview discourse.

    http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/philosophy/scientific-materialism.php

    The key phrase you need to confront from Phillip Johnson is this one: “For scientific materialists the materialism comes first; the science comes thereafter.” http://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/11/002-the-unraveling-of-scientific-materialism He is claiming that ideology impacts science. In this case, as a social scientist I quite obviously agree.

    You also might want to check out Inglehart’s ‘post-materialism’. Right now, with KN defining ‘materialism’ for TSZ with his ‘epistemological verificationism,’ this is an impoverished discussion meant only for skeptics, not for people interested to think more deeply than being merely stuck in the cellar (Sellars).

  6. Gregory: Which materialism? Scientific materialism? Cultural materialism (e.g. Marvin Harris)? Economic materialism? Historical materialism? Dialectical materialism (e.g. Georgi Plekhanov)? Etc.

    That’s what I’m asking. Which is the bad one, and why?

  7. Elizabeth,

    So do some reading then, Elizabeth. I included links and am not going to spoon feed this to you for remedial PoS education. You’re the one that ‘decided’ to become an atheist in her 50s.

  8. Gregory: So do some reading then, Elizabeth. I included links and am not going to spoon feed this to you for remedial PoS education.

    This is absurd.

    You gave us names of alleged varieties of materialism. Then you gave us links which do not seem to define any of those varieties. This is worthless.

  9. Gregory: As an aside: I really don’t see why you folks pay so much attention to WJM, other than that he is so active here at TSZ.

    As best I can tell, nobody here takes WJM seriously.

  10. Neil Rickert,

    ‘Alleged’!? Neil, the disenchanted man, casting doubt around him-self, is absurd. Obviously, he hasn’t read the links either. Do a search beyond Searle. Get off your lazy small mind and learn.

    You admitted yourself, Neil, that your “knowledge of the humanities is somewhat thin.” What have you done in the past nearly 2 years to correct that? Maths & comp sci here gain you no credits. You sound like a myopic fool.

  11. I should certainly like to know – when I am pejoratively addressed as a “materialist” – just what form my “materialism” takes in the mind of those thus addressing me.

    What, exactly, am I being accused of?

    Being a monist? Guilty
    Not believing in the existence of gods? Guilty

    But there are already perfectly adequate words and phrases to descibe these conditions.

    So what else is “materialism”?

  12. It’s a simple question, folks. But if you want to avoid being called a ‘materialist’ – in addition to the fact that most posters at TSZ are atheists or agnostics – then you can start by answering a simple question up front *before* whining that you like to imagine that you are not a ‘materialist’: What do you believe in or accept as ‘real’ other than matter, the material world?

    Energy? Information? Ok, fine.

    The traditional distinction is material/spiritual. And it precedes IDism by millennia.

  13. Gregory, do you consider name calling to be an effective way to attract people to your position?

  14. damitall2:
    I should certainly like to know – when I am pejoratively addressed as a “materialist” – just what form my “materialism” takes in the mind of those thus addressing me.

    What, exactly,am I being accused of?

    Being a monist? Guilty
    Not believing in the existence of gods? Guilty

    But there are already perfectly adequate words and phrases to descibe these conditions.

    So what else is “materialism”?

    Exactly. That is what I want to know.

  15. Gregory:
    Elizabeth,

    So do some reading then, Elizabeth. I included links and am not going to spoon feed this to you for remedial PoS education. You’re the one that ‘decided’ to become an atheist in her 50s.

    I do not want remedial PoS education. I want to know, as damitall says, what I am being accused of when I am accused of being a “materialist”.

    What is it the position that you assume that “materialists” hold that you think is wrong? Not, what are the positions defined by some PoS writers as “materialism”.

  16. I doubt many scientists have any idea of the various formal designations of “materialism” and what they specifically mean. I also doubt the wedge document was written with any of those specific brands of materialism in mind, what they were thinking of, IMO, was probably something pretty generic, such as: Everything that exists or occurs is ultimately caused by matter interacting according to deterministic laws & forces, and stochastic & chaotic processes (law & chance).

    I think that the DI’s view that mind is “immaterial” means that it is not caused by the above set of materialism-limited phenomena; that it is in some sense acausal.

    I think that atomist version of materialism (billiard balls) was of course abandoned long ago by scientists, but it’s my view that the more general version (as I define above) has been disproved by QM research, esp wrt to entanglement effects, observer collapse, local realism and quantum eraser/backwards causality experiments. This research puts consciousness/observation in an active, apparently central role when it comes to the way the world presents itself – not just in the interpretive sense, but in the actual sense.

    For some reason, this is a problem for scientists, as is other kinds of evidence – such as the big bang evidence when it was first discovered; the accumulating fine-tuning evidence, and the evidence found in the cells of living organisms. For some reason, they don’t like what this evidence apparently implicates: that the Mechanistic/Probabilistic/Chaotic scientific paradigm is fundamentally incomplete. So, they scramble to put together MPC theories that keep “mind” as an effect of those forces, not an at-least equal fundamental force, and provide unlimited chance to generate effects that appear to be orchestrated by some kind of intentional agency.

    And this is what really points to the crux of the “matter” (pun intended); materialists see mind as the product of MPC; non-materialists see mind to be its own thing in a fundamental sense and not the product of MPC laws and forces. One can see how this translates into pro-theism vs anti-theism.

    As for the social/culture wars, IMO, the reduction of the mind and all that entails to being the product of MPC laws and forces has clear, problematic political, behavioral and social implications which have been admitted by many past atheist/materialist philosophers. In general, people behave badly under materialistic psychological conditioning (and to be fair, they also react badly under certain forms of non-materialistic, theistic psychological conditioning). The concepts of self-evident political truths (such as equality under the law) and unalienable individual rights (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) no longer have any significant weight when removed from transcendent perspective. Etc.

    I think improper forms of theism degrade society; I think materialism generally degrades society because it degrades the concept of what a human being is, at least compared many good non-materialist perspectives.

  17. What I most object to is the idea that “materialism” is often regarded as some sort of defect or sin.

    As I understand it, “materialism” as commonly perceived is a perfectly respectable quality in a person.

    From my point of view, spirituality (as I understand it, although I accept my understanding may be sadly limited) is a minefield of woo.

  18. William J. Murray,

    In what way am I (you may call me a materialist) less of a decent human being and member of a civilised, rights-recognising society than would be a non-materialist?

  19. I would also appreciate an inventory of my shortcomings. I do not consider lack of expertise in all academic subjects to be a shortcoming. I do not consider lack of interest in theology and academic philosophy to be a shortcoming.

    Perhaps if someone could point to some specific bit of science — other than spoon bending — that would benefit from a spiritual approach.

    I might agree that social sciences are a mess, but I doubt if Gregory would approve of my suggestions for improvement.

  20. damitall2,

    You may be unfamiliar with the bulk of my writing here and at UD. I have often said that being a materialist and/or atheist doesn’t necessarily make anyone a worse, less moral, or less decent human being, just as someone being a theist or a non-materialist doesn’t necessarily make them any better or more moral. I’ve stated repeatedly that it is my opinion that most of the self-described atheists and materialists on this site likely behave in a more moral manner than I do. I don’t consider myself particularly moral.

    That said, I think the concept of materialism degrades what it means to be a human being. Others here might say it portrays humans, and what they are, realistically. Knocks them off their self-aggrandizing, religious pedestal, so to speak. Puts them back on more equal terms with other forms of life (and, they might say, that is a good thing).

    The problem is that without the perspective that some things are transcendent, self-evidently true, absolute or, if you will, sacred, then all things are ultimately justifiable and there is no concept of human rights or dignity that is anything more than a subjective opinion or a political contrivance that can be suspended, invented or changed by the state. Materialists today, in most western societies, are riding along a cultural river generated and sustained by non-materialist values and concepts. Those values and concepts (individual unalienable rights, coherent moral values, personal responsibility) are slowly being eroded into a political free-for-fall with the state slowly replacing transcendent truths, rights, responsibilities and values with its own rules and regulations into every nook and cranny in our lives. ETC.

  21. damitall2,

    I’ve also said repeatedly here that while many describe themselves as materialists, few (other than sociopaths) actually act as if materialism (as I described above) is true. It is my opinion that virtually nobody sane can actually act as if materialism is true. However, the worldview of materialism – even if true – is bad for society and human beings in general, IMO.

    Let’s look at early Darwinism, for example. Many people thought that the scientific, truthful extrapolation of the theory would mean that, in order to ensure the survival and thriving of the human race, certain humans should either be destroyed or not allowed to procreate. Logically, there’s really nothing wrong with this line of thought – it’s a sound inference from the basic survival of the fittest principle. However, we know it is wrong, morally speaking, and we know it violates some transcendent right. But, under materialism, all you have to refer to is a competing opinion, not an unalienable or transcendent right.

    Darwin himself couldn’t agree with what he himself thought were the logical consequences of his theory wrt other races and cultures. He knew they were morally wrong; but, under materialism, what provides for such a position other than mere personal feeling?

    This is one of the reasons, IMO, that whether or not materialism is true, we shouldn’t believe it is true. To paraphrase Hub from Secondhand Lions – there are things a person needs to believe in whether they are true or not, because those are the things worth believing in.

  22. William J. Murray: Darwin himself couldn’t agree with what he himself thought were the logical consequences of his theory wrt other races and cultures.

    Which were?

  23. William J. Murray: Logically, there’s really nothing wrong with this line of thought – it’s a sound inference from the basic survival of the fittest principle.

    You know nothing.

  24. William J. Murray,

    I think, rather, that the state is being subverted by those a) with a fear-born need to control in detail the lives of others; and b) extraordinary avarice for wealth and power.

    All to often, these people operate under the colours of religion, “god-given” rights and “spiritual values”

  25. “WTF does that mean.”

    It means, there’s a whole lot to learn in this world that maths & comp sci teach you nothing about and that atheism might be much more of a bitch than you realise.

  26. Gregory: It means, there’s a whole lot to learn in this world that maths & comp sci teach you nothing about and that atheism might be much more of a bitch than you realise.

    I do not see it as a bitch at all. Could you list a few bitchy things that follow necessarily from not believing?

  27. Ok, I’ll bite.

    What do you believe in or accept as ‘real’ other than matter, the material world?

    I think this question is already ill-formed. I myself lean toward a property dualism according to which everything in the world is physical but some of them are also mental. So there are mental items in spite of there being no things that are

    ‘real’ other than matter, the material world.

    But there are properties–which are not “things.” Thus, there are no mental substances, but some brain states have a mental dimension.

  28. I am fully aware that science and technology do not tell us how to live or what to love. I don’t see any evidence that philosophy, theology and social science have any useful answers either. In fact, people having answers seem inordinately fond of hurting other people in pursuit of imposing answers.

  29. Gregory: It means, there’s a whole lot to learn in this world that maths & comp sci teach you nothing about and that atheism might be much more of a bitch than you realise.

    Okay. So it was merely an insult, and your earlier comment was just guano.

  30. See, Elizabeth, how discussion can bog down into semantics when you try to avoid isms. Some knowledge of isms is common sense.

    KN gave an overview what can be meant by materialism. Murray has his Wedgian perspective, which is okay when it’s frank.

    In religious parlance, materialism does not mean so much things to do with scientific physicalism as with things that are assumed to arise from there – social Darwinism and moral relativism. Properly speaking, those things should be called that – social Darwinism and moral relativism – instead of saying it’s all materialism.

    As to scientific physicalism, this is perceived to have made its way into school education via the subject called science class. When the contents of the subject is really physics and chemistry, but the subject is called science, then it follows that a subject like English is not science. This problem is specific to the Anglo-Saxon world. The rest of the world has separate school subjects called physics and chemistry, so there’s no “science” elevated above literature and such.

    And yes, I consider such “materialism” bad too, even though not the way the Wedge document does. Social Darwinism and moral relativism are bad, but they have to be called rightly, when there’s a chance of confusion. Wrong names on school subjects are also bad, but the problem goes away when the names are set right.

    And physicalist metaphysical presuppositions, such as atomism and mind-brain identity are also bad – because they are wrong. But it only makes sense to debate such presuppositions with those who specifically hold such presuppositions, not with everybody who seems to vaguely qualify as materialist. Many people seem or claim to be materialists, but at closer inspection are not.

  31. Erik: Thanks for this clarification, but I have to point out that it’s precisely because I don’t want to get “bogged down with semantics” that I want people to specify, precisely, what it is that they are objecting to when they object to “materialism”.

    The Wedge document, for instance, alleges:

    Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

    Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

    Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

    So, for those here who agree with any one of those accusations against “materialists” (ETA: not Erik: he’s done so!)

    What. Do. YOU. Mean. By. Materialism.

    I don’t want to know what someone else means by the word, or how it can be defined, or what is wrong with some definition.

    I want to know what YOU mean, if, by it, you agree with any of the allegations (or similar) made in the Wedge.

  32. Erik:
    In religious parlance, materialism does not mean so much things to do with scientific physicalism as with things that are assumed to arise from there – social Darwinism and moral relativism. Properly speaking, those things should be called that – social Darwinism and moral relativism – instead of saying it’s all materialism.

    Well, exactly. Trying to tar science with the brush of “social Darwinism” is absurd and unjust. As for “moral relativism” – I’d like to know what that is supposed to mean. I certainly don’t like the sound of “moral absolutism”. Does “situation ethics” count as “moral relativism” in your view? Because it seems to me that all ethical dilemmas involve weighing up relative harms – and should do.

    As to scientific physicalism, this is perceived to have made its way into school education via the subject called science class. When the contents of the subject is really physics and chemistry, but the subject is called science, then it follows that a subject like English is not science. This problem is specific to the Anglo-Saxon world. The rest of the world has separate school subjects called physics and chemistry, so there’s no “science” elevated above literature and such.

    I’m sorry, I’m not understanding you. Are you saying that English should be classed as a science? Can you explain?

    And physicalist metaphysical presuppositions, such as atomism and mind-brain identity are also bad – because they are wrong.

    Atomism is clearly a poor model for many purposes, although it still works pretty well for chemistry. Clearly it has been falsified by the discovery of subatomic particles. And clearly the view that reality consists of atoms and space is also a poor model, especially now we have a model of spacetime.

    I’m not sure what “mind-brain identity” is. If you mean the idea that mind and brain are the same thing, that is clearly false – it makes a category error for a start. If you mean that the view that mind is a capacity organisms have by virtue of having a brain, and lose when that brain no longer functions, then it is, in my view an excellent model, and certainly not “wrong”.

    But it only makes sense to debate such presuppositions with those who specifically hold such presuppositions, not with everybody who seems to vaguely qualify as materialist. Many people seem or claim to be materialists, but at closer inspection are not.

    Quite. So I hope I have made my own position clearer 🙂

  33. Erik: This problem is specific to the Anglo-Saxon world. The rest of the world has separate school subjects called physics and chemistry, so there’s no “science” elevated above literature and such.

    I chuckle at the “Anglo-Saxon” insult that is often evoked here (in France). You are wrong in fact, though. From the age of eleven, I was taught science in three separate categories of physics, chemistry and biology.

  34. Reading through this thread I got the distinct impression that the title should have been Bad Materialists.

  35. You might be a bad materialist if you failed to answer Gregory’s question:

    What do you believe in or accept as ‘real’ other than matter, the material world?

  36. Mung:
    You might be a bad materialist if you failed to answer Gregory’s question:
    What do you believe in or accept as ‘real’ other than matter, the material world?

    Being of one substance. Things are aspects.

  37. You might be a rich materialist if you can afford:

    The word ‘materialism’ is ambiguous: it designates a moral doc­trine as well as a philosophy and, indeed, an entire world view. Moral materialism is identical with hedonism, or the doctrine that humans should pursue only their own pleasure. Philosophical materialism is the view that the real worId is composed exclusively of material things. The two doctrines are logically independent: hedonism is consistent with immaterialism, and materialism is compatible with high minded morals. We shall be concerned exclusively with philosophical materialism. And we shall not confuse it with realism, or the epistemological doctrine that knowIedge, or at any rate scientific knowledge, attempts to represent reality. Philosophical materialism is not a recent fad and it is not a solid block: it is as old as philosophy and it has gone through six quite different stages. The first was ancient materialism, centered around Greek and Indian atomism. The second was the revival of the first during the 17th century. The third was 18th century ma­terialism, partly derived from one side of Descartes’ ambiguous legacy. The fourth was the mid-19th century “scientific” material­ism, which flourished mainly in Germany and England, and was tied to the upsurge of chemistry and biology. The fifth was dialec­tical and historical materialism, which accompanied the consolida­tion of the socialist ideology. And the sixth or current stage, evolved mainly by Australian and American philosophers, is academic and nonpartisan but otherwise very heterogeneous. Ancient materialism was thoroughly mechanistic.

    Scientific Materialism

  38. Mung,

    A huge cut and paste, with no citation. The link that you provide is just the link to this comment page on TSZ, so not useful.

    It seems to be from the preface of the book “Scientific Materialism” by Mario Bunge. According to Google books, this would cost $108.32 for an e-book version. No thanks.

    I don’t see the point of posting this.

  39. None of those materialisms are related to physical science. At least not science science since Einstein and Bohr.

Leave a Reply