Yes, but I was speaking about interpretations that do NOT refute materialism. The many-worlds-theory is the place to go if you are a materialist. There really isn’t too much room to giggle around. This is why we see famous materialist like Stephen Hawkins believe in this theory. All respectable materialist go with this theory cause there is simply not much room to giggle around.
But the most fundamental problem with materialism is … the main thesis itself. The idea that consciousness originated from matter and therefore after we die, it all ends. You would expect at least an attempt at an explanation about how consciousness could possible originate from matter, but we get nothing. All that we get is blind faith. A “Just believe and don’t question” attitude.
In order to believe in something, people usually need at least an attempt at an explanation. How can a primitive organism with 5 neurons like an ant have consciousness but a computer that can beat me at chess can’t ? How exactly could this consciousness possibly originate from matter ?
This is why I always suggest materialist to do this little experiment: Just think about this problem for 10 minutes. For 10 minutes not for 10 seconds. Just stop and really think about how could it possibly happen for consciosunes to originate from matter.
Sorry, but I’m not convinced you really know what you’re talking about, despite your confident opinions.
Anyway, all of these debates are 180 degrees in the opposite direction of liberation, which just requires looking at one’s own mind and bringing an end to one’s cravings and attachments. So back to the practice!
“Not all atheists are materialists, but many (most?) are. Not all materialists are atheists, but virtually all of them are.”
This is a an impediment to meaningful discussion - the blurring of relevant distinctions. Atheists often have their own definition of faith. Atheists like to imagine that they are faithless - they are rational-beings not like those silly believers in religion. It is an inescapable fact that the belief in the non-existence of a deity/deities is an article of faith. Theists have not got a 'snowflake’s chance in hell’ of proving that their deities are real (through arguing for their existence). Likewise, atheists are completely incapable of disproving the existence of deities. It is all conjecture! Therefore, theism and atheism are both belief-systems - thats why they are called ‘isms’. It is important that we establish the meanings and definitions of what it is we are talking about. If we are ‘sloppy’ in the way we talk about things and fail to make ‘accurate’ distinctions between belief and disbelief, religion and irreligion, faith and doubt, we will be adding to the confusion.
I have heard a complaint from religious people - and I think its valid - that some atheists have a simplistic and naive understanding of the depth and breadth of religious thought and practice. It turns out that fundamentalist religious beliefs are not endorsed by many religious people - not just atheists. The result of this unedifying debate is a dumming-down of religion (on the one hand) and, science (on the other). Atheists often claim to be spokes-people for science and falsely claim that science stands in opposition to religion. This is all ideology in disguise and it needs to be challenged out of respect for contemplative and scientific forms of inquiry.
In reality, a militant atheist has superstition in mind when they shadow-box their ideological enemies. There are a large range of pet-hates that militant atheists like to rant and rave about. Religious theories and beliefs are given short-shrift as they believe religious people are like children who believe in fairy-tales. This is a dumb-generalisation, a stupid ‘belief’ - irrational nonsense - comparable, to believing that the moon is made of cheese. I believe the OP is pointing to this problem - mental impairment. It makes pigeons look smart by comparison!
When we start with a fixed-conclusion and rely on a number of blurry assumptions we end up in the place we started - which is no where of particular interest to anyone with an open-mind and a capacity for deep reflection.
Yes, but it can be understood - its not rocket science. Its all about fixed - not fluid - identities (personas), and grossly inadequate characterisations of the so-called (other). If we were capable of recognising ‘clearly’ what it is that is problematic then, we would be one step closer to resolving the issue. We can see it playing out in most forms of human dissonance and conflict. The astonishing fact is there has never been any pressing need to identify with any ideology or ‘ism’ devised by the confused and challenged among us. We really don’t need to be a ‘this or a that’ and we don’t need to jump to conclusions about other people. We can actually meet each other as human beings and begin to discuss our problems (individually and, collectively). Calmly, clearly and, with kindness we can look at what is actually going on within us and around us - and what do we find? Do we find atheists and theists, physicalists and meta-physicalists or, some other woefully inadequate attempt to explain ‘human beings’ - life and living? We are not who we think we are and we are not what we take ourselves to be. The awakened-ones see clearly and the rest of us are clutching at straws. It is desire and fear of the uncontrollable - the unknown - that gives rise to the contraction around a sense of self - we are really nobody’s going nowhere.
It seems to me that Buddhism is quite open to using the scientific method. The EBTs read like a typical scientific experiment to me, where you follow the method and you reproduce the results.
One needs a level of faith to actually be bothered to try and carry out any experiment. The two go hand in hand.
Not really. But I take it that you will agree that whatever we conclude about the ultimate nature or reality of the self, it will remain true at some common sense level that it is possible for you to meditate.
