Evidence is monist by definition; the supernatural is not differentiable from the unknown, making any conclusions about it invalid, which is why science doesn't regard the supernatural at all. The scientific method can take a lot of little repeatable phenomena, and structure a hypothesis about how they may work; and all that may fit into a theory which can be tested in more elaborate ways, and used for practical things. You theists are working backward, trying to justify a non sequitur with random miscellaneous bullshit.

This is such a weird question. Read it again, and consider that physical reality is the only reality we actually have evidence for. Your question then becomes, "What evidence does the atheist have that reality constitutes reality?"

ALL the evidence is physical. ALL of it from the natural world. Evidence for the supernatural is shaky at best, and basically nonexistent.

Try a lurking supernatural belief. That doesn't imply any specific creature of the supernatural, just a belief in the supernatural itself.

In other words, you have no rational basis to support your worldview.  As such, you have no intellectual right to make the pretense of rationalism.

Hi Everybody!

I'm relatively new here, but I was just curious if anyone can point me in the direction of where I can get the book on how to live my life according to the Worldview of Atheistic Materialism?

Thanks in advance!

Panentheism is probably the most "logical" tact to take if you wish to believe in a supernatural guiding force to the universe. It's certainly not entirely without merit.

Your question comes with a couple of undefined terms. What is "ultimate reality?" How is it distinguished from regular old middle-of-the-week-I-haven't-had-enough-coffee reality? And, what constitutes evidence? If you are building your panentheistic worldview on evidence, what evidence do you have that it is congruent with reality?

I'll try to answer the question I think you are asking.

I'll assume by "materialist" you mean "empiricist." I am that. I believe our knowledge of the universe (what you called Truth in another thread, with a capital 'T') can come from one source -- direct observation. We can draw conclusions from those observations, and communicate our experiences and observations with others, but ultimately, anything that is not directly observed is not Truth, it is merely suspicion.

(You might at this point argue that our sensation of the universe constitutes indirect, and not direct, observation. I'll gloss over this point for now, in the interest of relative brevity.)

So, we observe, and we reason about what we observe, and we draw conclusions, and these conclusions show us where to make our next observations. If the new observations were indicated by the conclusions, the conclusions are considered contingently trustworthy. (Contingent on further observation, of course.) If the observations are contraindicated by the conclusions, we go back and reason further about our observations, to draw new conclusions.

In all steps, observation is the key. Reason alone is not sufficient. Historically, reason alone is almost always incorrect. Reason alone is not self-correcting. Reason coupled to and bounded by observation is self-correcting. This is proven by the progress our society has made through the practice of science. There is no other epistemology that has given us consistently correct results. Science does that, and it does so consistently.

As we gain knowledge, we discover new areas of our own ignorance. It seems to be human nature to plaster the face of God (whether Christian, pantheistic, Hindu, panentheistic, or any other conception of a guiding force) across the blankness of the unknown, rather than exploring the unknown. This is usually the result of reasoning sans observation. In every case so far, God has fled before the inexorable tendrils of science. Every empty place on the map of knowledge, where we once had written, "Here be God," has been replaced with a detailed cartography of observation, reason, and progress.

So, that is why I believe that the evidence of the physical reality constitutes ultimate reality. Our conception of the fundamentals of the universe might change (such as with our current research in to quantum gravity, as has been mentioned), but that conception is additive, not destructive. We don't lose knowledge simply because we realize we don't know everything yet. So far, we've not found evidence of anything but the perfect and wondrous machinations of the universe.

But that's just me. If you are happy in your beliefs, and if they give you feelings of comfort and safety, then you are no worse off than I. I myself cannot find comfort there, as it seems to me merely a façade, a false hope, and false comfort. There seems to be no logical way, even with a panentheistic God, to determine the attributes of this God. So, to reason about this God without observation is to wander blindly across an infinite glass plane, with no markers or methods of determining the characteristics or desires or powers of God.

And that, to me, sounds hopeless and frustrating.

No, because "materialism" (a.k.a. physcialism) is a metaphysical position.

Are you joking, Dray? The beauty of living the life is that you get to make your own decisions rather than living according to obscure messages in mythology. Why would you want just one book?

The non-physical is undetectable. (for if it was detectable I would group it in with the physical) Because the physical is the only thing that is detectable, it is the only thing that constitutes meaningful reality. Thus, the physical is ultimate reality for practical concerns. If there are any meaningless details to "ultimate reality", one must be agnostic to them.

No, you must first learn to dinstingusih between the terms "phenomena" and "reality." They are not necessarily the same. Phenomena is simply "appearances." Appearances can be deceiving or illusory. The question then becomes: "What is the ultimate nature ofl phenomena?" Is it physical, mental or some combination thereof?" This is what I mean by the term "ultimate reality." Materialism says that all phenomena is ultimately physical in nature (this includes mental phenomena as well).

I do not accept the notion that the "natural" and the "physical" are interchangeable terms. Metaphysical questions ask "What is the "ultimate nature" of the phenomenal world?" The belief that nature is ultimately physical is just that - a belief.

As I have demonstrated in previous posts, the prevailing scientific evidence based on quantum theory does not support materialism - the view that matter or the physical is fundamental.

This is why I have to set up some kind of parameters when engaging  atheists in a metaphysical discussion. Typically, an atheist wants to hide behind the notion that "atheism is simply a disbelief in God - it doesn't affirm anything." This is just an excuse to enable atheists to criticize the metaphysical views of others without subjecting their own views to the same scrutiny. I will not permit the atheist to have this luxury. If an atheist wants to have a fair metaphysical debate then I demand that he states his metaphysical position.

What evidence of quantum events are nonphysical?

Perhaps we could use the the term "scientific naturalism," then, since you don't like the term "scientific materialism." Then, we can say that all observed phenomena can be explained in naturalistic terms.

There's also evidence to support that quantum theory is incorrect, or at least, vastly incomplete. After several decades, we still have dozens of theories attempting to explain the fundamentals of quantum field theory. Quantum gravity is a mess. String theory, which seems to be the prevailing view, is as yet unprovable. (CERN may be able to correct that with the large hadron collider, so that might change in the next couple of years.) Even with that, the fundamental of matter hardly destroys the concept of natural materialism. As we learn what matter really is, we gain knowledge about what constitutes matter. We don't lose the concept of matter. Understanding a brick does not negate the house.

Also, there are competing hypothesis to quantum theory (such as field structure theory) that may merit attention. (Although it seems that FST is really just a bunch of determinists who don't like the uncertainty principle. However, their approach is intriguing, in that it's simple, where quantum theory has only increased in complexity, a sign that it is potentially incorrect.)  I wouldn't throw the physical baby out with the metaphysical bathwater just yet.

Here's a simple summary of my metaphysical beliefs:

Any belief system must be congruent with observed reality. Any belief in a deity, or a supreme being, or a panentheistic guiding force, is based not on observation, but on a desire to hold beliefs that are orthogonal to observable reality. It is based on emotion, and on reasoning alone, without observation. As I stated before, that dog won't hunt.

Further, belief in God does not lead to a cohesive, coherent view of the universe. The assumption of God is an unnecessary duality, where every phenomena must be interpreted in two ways -- naturalistically, and in light of God's involvement. This adds complexity and uncertainty. I'll have my friend Okham take up the rest of that argument.

Now. Please note I said belief in God is orthogonal to observable reality. I am not agnostic, but I'm certainly not going to attack your presumably-rational views of divinity. (Irrational views, though, are fair game.)

Finally: if you want to use quantum theory to topple materialism, be careful: quantum theory supports pantheism much more strongly than panentheism.

Only if I claim to be God. I don't. I claim no absolute knowledge of my own nature, any more than I claim absolute knowledge of what happens after I die.

And yet subsequent posts show the the original poster has little idea of what it means. It's certainly not as bad as Paisley would have you believe. It's sort of like being a regular person who doesn't believe in ghosts. There's not much to it.

No, but it's a fun idea. I thought you were poking fun, which is fine, since the book would be called "How To Think For Yourself"

Now that's funny. 

Quantum events are events without a physical cause.

No, only that one cannot prove to themselves that any external source exists. If you can't believe anything you can't prove then the rational conclusion is solipsism, right?

BTW don't take this too seriously, my intentions in starting this were lighthearted but it seems to be getting a little heated here.

Lies are creations too. The thing is that by the first quoted statement you have identified only one possible creator for anything, lie or truths or whatever, and it is sentient.

As there is only one possible source of which one can assume to have evidence or vice versa there is no evidence of any other possible source, any alternative to solipsism not ultimately believable through evidence.

The problem here is a semantic one of equating, or at least conflating, 'non-physical' to 'non-material' blurring into 'non-natural', or 'supernatural', leading with no justification whatever to some variation of the God hypothesis.

The Theistically inclined often appear to me to be in some ways more 'materialist' than naturalist non-theists, in that they seem to need to think that any word referring to something not actually composed of matter refers instead to something that is constituted of some supernatural 'stuff'. Related to whatever constituted the ideal geometric figures and other conceptual 'things'.

IOW, ideas and 'souls' and 'essences' and ultimate 'principles' and causes, are actually things, just made of a supernatural 'stuff'.

In the view of most scientifically inclined people capable of some subtlety of thought, as I like to think of myself, nature is composed of matter/energy, PLUS pattern, structure, process, etc., which are purely abstract concepts, in one sense, ie you can't pick up and feel a process in the same way you can a tea-cup. They are attributes of particular collections of inter-related, interacting matter and energy. A pattern or structure may be static in itself, yet direct the flows of other matter and/or energy, like a radio antenna directing electromagnetic radiation. A process is a pattern with structure in the time dimension.

Pattern, structure, process, etc are not 'material' things in the reductionist sense the OP seems to be using it, but are intimately part of a complete account of nature. They can be observed and described, some we can manipulate or even initiate.

It is an ignorant straw-man argument to insist that a 'materialist', in some tired metaphysical definition of the term, cannot account for these aspects of reality. It is metaphysics which is mired in ancient misconceptions and missing modern insights from the true study of reality, including the nature of mind and consciousness, namely Science.

It is also a crudely false dichotomy to present the only options as Materialism or God.

I left that word in purposefully. I do know the non-deterministic nature of quantum theory. A machine may also be non-deterministic. That's the whole point of Schrödinger's box -- it's a non-deterministic machine, based on quantum uncertainty. There's no evidence the universe is anything other than a large, non-deterministic machine. At its heart, all matter may be standing waves of energy. But that still doesn't require anything other than that which is contained in the universe.

The best argument for pantheism I've ever heard (not panentheism, unfortunately) is that the universe is quite likely one vast quantum computer, continuously calculating itself. That conception encompasses quantum theory, but also results in the universe-as-machine.

That sounds like a contradiction. There is no empiricism without observation. Contemplation without observation has a history of arriving at completely logical, and completely wrong, conclusions.

If it is a nonphysical cause, then guess what...it isn't physical. This begs the question: Why call yourself a physicalist if you believe in nonphysical causes? If it is fundamentally indeterminate, then it doesn't have a cause and therefore without explanation. Either way you have problems.

No, if it is conscious (and it would have to be to qualify as pantheism), then it qualifies as a quantum mind (not machine) exercising free will (selecting different possibilities amongst an infinity of quantum states).

Contemplative practice is the practice of meditation or mysticism.

empricism : a theory that all knowledge originates in experience (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

mysticism : the belief that direct knowledge of God, spiritual truth, or ultimate reality can be attained through subjective experience (as intuition or insight) (source: Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)

They do not have a physical cause. If they do not have a physical cause, then materialism is invalidated.

It's physical. When you think about music, a different part of your brain is working than if you're thinking about accounting. Lots of evidence points to physical thoughts. If you have evidence of a non-physical ... anything, just let me know.

Okay, so should I say "non-physical" instead of "supernatural"? Would that make you feel more comfortable?

Yeah, it's a belief. It's a belief based on tons of physical evidence. Physical evidence is still the only kind you can get. Metaphysical questions can ask all they want.

What? Quantum theory attempts to describe the interactions that make up matter. What else does it describe, magic? Fairy dust?

A "fair metaphysical debate"? That seems a bit aetherial to me. Set up any parameters you like - I'm still having difficulty understanding your position. If you want to criticize my materialism, I'm okay with that, but don't bring a prejudice to the conversation and assume that it applies. My position is firmly positivist - no equivocation here.

Not presenting substance seems consistent with your position, so at least you're free of hypocrisy.

I'm not going to talk about the dog-belief except to say it's a waste of time talking to someone who is delusional enough to believe in fairy tales.  What I want to ask is where the hell do you people get these supposed facts regarding atheists.  Most of the atheists I know are no more materialistic than a xtian.  In fact most of the xtians I know are self conscious consumers driving their BMW's and Benz's posing for anyone who looks. I deliver mail to a gated community with more than 700 customers.  The majority are xtian and the houses many of them have are in excess of 1M dollars.  Approximately 30 are preachers and most (27) of them are of the fundy type.  Quite a few of them are the laziest people I know, passing their mail box at least twice daily but not stopping to pick it up for two weeks and then complaining when I remove the mail back to the post office. 

Before you go there, I do not have a problem with rich people, I have a problem with smug xtian assholes, the least tolerant in our society.  Now mind you I do know genuinely nice theists.  They are not smug, in fact they are quite warm and friendly and do not judge others by their beliefs and do things for others, albeit so they can get into heaven.

As for atheists being materialistic I'll use myself.  I make good money but I opted to buy a 30yr old mobile home instead of a 2100 sq ft house (or larger), though I do own the land if you want ot call that materialistic.  I have a 5yr old van that I use for work and a 15yr old car I use for errands.  I do my own landscaping and yardwork as opposed to hiring gardeners as my customers do.  I don't have a lot of fancy furniture, gold, jewelry, toys, etc.   My one vice is that I love to cook and eat (picture Dom DeLuise sp). I do admit, however, that I bought a 20 piece set of pans for just over $400 about 8 yrs ago that I still use and they are in excellent shape.

Most atheists I know are similar in their materialism to me.  I will admit that there are likely to be found a sizeable number of atheists who are materialistic.  What's doubtful is that the percentage of materialistic atheists among their population would be larger than xtians.  In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was lower. 

Now, if I'm materialistic then I guess all those fundies on my route got a reservation on the express elevator to hell.  What really pisses me off is you people make this claim all the time.  I'm calling you on it.  Show me the statistics or studies that prove this claim or are you simply parroting some mindless drivel you heard somewhere spoken by some ignorant fundy preacher.  We are no more materialistic than xtians.

As far as the "lurking god-belief; I DON'T BELIEVE IN YOUR FUCKING gOD OR ANYONE'S FUCKING gOD, THERE IS NO PROOF OF THE EXISTENCE OF YOUR FUCKING gOD OR ANY FUCKING dOG FOR THAT MATTER!! CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU?  I'M AN ATHEIST, dOGDAMN IT!  It's not a religion, we don't believe in anything, we simply don't believe.

For the record Cpt I was referring to spin networks and string resonances, as distinct from QM. LQG and Strings are theories of quantum gravity. Both converge on the same description of physicality as a property of, ironically, what are in material terms, just abstract concepts; eg geometry.

QM defies Newtonian mechanics by being indeterminate. In simplest terms the uncertainty principle makes short work of the idea of making universal physical predictions from a handful of distinct information. In general material monists will by default presuppose that QM fits a Newtonian universe, this isn't really anyones fault either, this theory is never what a person being introduced to it expects it to be. QM, in reality, looks not even remotely like what we think the world is.  

Non-commutativity is not just a mathematical law, it says something about the universe it is applied to.  Momentum is directional, it should commute with position, it just makes common sense from a physicalist point of view.