Responding to a materialist...

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

The purpose of this thread is to gather in one place our experience or advice in dealing with that certain kind of a human to human encounter. Many of us had probably experienced it personnally and were not prepared to respond with dignity or not responded at all. This is nothing to be ashamed of. This is a lesson. And the next time we will be better prepared for it i hope :) Warmly thank you for your creative input here :)

Materialism: a view (a system of belief a faith, let's be frank) of reality assuming the universe is cold, almost empty and dead space. All there is is a result of atoms bouncing randomly of each other. Life is an annomally. Evolution is a survival of the fittest. Consciousnes, thoughs, new ideas, emotions are mere results of chemical reactions occuring in the brain. Human brain is a result of evolution, allowing for a better chance of survival in a hostile environment and passing on of an individuals DNA. The purpose of human life is to reproduce. There is nothing more than what you can sense with your sight, touch, smell, hearing and taste and measure with some man made instruments. Everything else is fairytales and waste of time. All that matters is efficiency, productivity and profit. Everything is determined and there is no such thing as free will since people can be easily manipulated.

Materialist: a person believing in materialism.

Now, imagine you find yourself in a presence of a materialist. You know that person is a materialist by a statemet that person have just made. The statement has been made in a very authoritative and humilitiating manner. It was a crushing critique of an attempt of directing a conversation on the subject of spirituality and existence beyond death of the human body. After quick recovering from falling down to earth you gather yourself and respond in the most loving and spiritual way you can. You constrain yourself to maximum three or four sentences so your response could be made as short and quick as possible to not "miss the moment" of the conversation and to make your challenge harder to ignore.

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

Response:
Why have you chosen to believe in materialism?

[RMorgan]

I´d say:

Well, if we analyze the facts, using pure, unbiased logic, you might very well be correct, or not. However, since we are discussing beliefs, all I can say is that I don´t believe you.

[NeverMind]

Consciousnes, thoughs, new ideas, emotions are mere results of chemical reactions occuring in the brain.

Really? Can I see some empirical evidence - evidence, not opinions - for that statement?
(A silence is necessary here, so that the person knows you mean it. They ARE required to come up with evidence. Or shut up.)

Because consciousness, conscience (!), sensitivity and all those other common attributes of an evolved organism do not enhance a person's "survival" chances - in fact, many of them would be, and are, a hindrance in the "survival of the fittest".

So, who or what exactly twisted man's arm to develop them - to develop a spirit?

Still, I wouldn't bother too much with that sort of person (assuming they are really that close-minded as described).
What I would do - what I have done - is simply to smile, kindly not arrogantly, and tell them: "You don't know, but you haven't grown enough to know you don't know. When you do, maybe we will discuss this properly."

Au revoir. :)

[Lord Sidious]

I find the Socratic method to be best.
In that vein, I would ask them how it is working for them? Are they happy to destroy the planet to get what they want? How much is enough? What about the people who don't have the same as them? Does having make them feel superior to them?

[ulli]

I stay quiet, knowing that their belief is being constantly confirmed by the universe,
and therefore they would expect me to use my brain cells and enter into a debate which they are sure they would win.
All mental processes are dualistic, and can be switched around. Ask any lawyer.

But such is the nature of the cosmos, that it mirrors belief structures back at the observer.

So I stay quiet, and my silence puzzles them.
It's in the moment of being puzzled that spirit can operate on their insides.
My son has taught me well, I must say.
He is a picture book atheist, and so after many useless and frustrating debates I finally figured it out:
the power of silence.

[Adi]

I personally wouldn't answer, in my effort to try and explain to them that the reality that they know to be true is certainly not what it seems I would probably complicate the topic even more so. He/she will come to know what they need to know when it happens, I, simply continue on my own journey and thats it.

Interesting topic Robert.

Adi

[Strat]

My reaction/reply would depend on several factors. Some people are not going to listen. Say what you want, they are waiting for their turn to speak. They are not listening. Perhaps I'm thinking of someone who is hyper-arrogant? I'm accustomed to these folks, good luck talking to them about spirituality.

I'm a fairly social guy, and I'm comfortable around all types of people. I do know however, when I meet a hard headed moron. Imagine talking to Bill O'Reilly about any material presented on this forum. He literally wouldn't let you speak. There's no point debating with these types of people.

If it's just a rude person that is willing to debate facts then I am so ready for that. I grew up with an older brother and a rough high school. To be frank, I won't be nice to jerks. I've an arsenal of insults and a powerful wit; don't poke the bear. One thing that gives me an edge is I'm not easily offended and I'm not out to prove anything. A lot of these types of people are just rough around the edges. While being forward and insulting, they are just being themselves.

So given your scenario of a life after death conversation, it's hard to determine what I would do. Not a lot frankly, I don't know what happens after I die, so I wont tell anybody what happens. I'm not being a smart ass, I'm being serious. I think maybe OOBE's point into the direction of life after death and I'd bring up some interesting cases, but there isn't much I can think of beyond that.

[Sidney]

From experience, I think its pointless to waste precious energy trying to convince someone of something they are clueless about. I am sure they think the same about us. I simply bite my tongue and try to stay neutral until I can make my escape.

[aranuk]

Hi Robert, these people are brain damaged, too far gone. Why waste a minute of your precious time on them? I certainly don't!

Stan

[Omni connexae!]

Materialism: a view (a system of belief a faith, let's be frank) of reality assuming the universe is cold, almost empty and dead space. All there is is a result of atoms bouncing randomly of each other. Life is an annomally. Evolution is a survival of the fittest. Consciousnes, thoughs, new ideas, emotions are mere results of chemical reactions occuring in the brain. Human brain is a result of evolution, allowing for a better chance of survival in a hostile environment and passing on of an individuals DNA. The purpose of human life is to reproduce. There is nothing more than what you can sense with your sight, touch, smell, hearing and taste and measure with some man made instruments. Everything else is fairytales and waste of time. All that matters is efficiency, productivity and profit. Everything is determined and there is no such thing as free will since people can be easily manipulated.

Seems like you have taken Materialism and added parts that sound more like Nihilism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism) and a bit of Determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism).

Materialism is the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality.

As for refuting it, heres a start:


Some modern day physicists and science writers such as Paul Davies and John Gribbin have openly expressed how scientific finds in physics such as quantum mechanics and chaos theory have disproven materialism. In their 1991 book The Matter Myth in the first chapter titled The death of materialism they wrote:

Then came our Quantum theory, which totally transformed our image of matter. The old assumption that the microscopic world of atoms was simply a scaled-down version of the everyday world had to be abandoned. Newton's deterministic machine was replaced by a shadowy and paradoxical conjunction of waves and particles, governed by the laws of chance, rather than the rigid rules of causality. An extension of the quantum theory goes beyond even this; it paints a picture in which solid matter dissolves away, to be replaced by weird excitations and vibrations of invisible field energy. Quantum physics undermines materialism because it reveals that matter has far less 'substance' than we might believe. But another development goes even further by demolishing Newton's image of matter as inert lumps. This development is the theory of chaos, which has recently gained widespread attention.

— Paul Davies and John Gribbin, 'The Matter Myth', Chapter 1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

This also refutes Determinism IMO.

As for Nihilism, I don't believe it because I just don't see the benefit of doing so. The belief is a sort of paradox, in a few ways, which can make for good arguments against it.

For instance, they may say there is no meaning to life, or that there is no meaning in the universe. But by saying that, they have created meaning. There is meaning behind the statement. 'No meaning' is itself a meaning.

Also, believing that life has no worth, while choosing to continue living doesn't really make sense lol.

[Omni connexae!]

Because consciousness, conscience (!), sensitivity and all those other common attributes of an evolved organism do not enhance a person's "survival" chances - in fact, many of them would be, and are, a hindrance in the "survival of the fittest".

I was lucky enough to get the opportunity to ask a working Biologist about something similar to this once.

I basically asked this: Why are many humans born with perfect pitch for singing? How does that help survival? Why have we got this ability to question ourselves and our surrounding? To choose good or bad? How does that help survival? How do some humans have extraordinary abilities like savants, that almost have calculators in their head that do the working out for them? Why can someone be able memorize Pi to like 20k + decimal points? How does that ability help survival?

She responded with: The short answer is that organisms on this planet have found very complicated ways of passing on their genes. With so many different species of organisms in the world, the competition is tough. If you want to make it, you've got to find some new combination of traits that gives you a leg up over all those other guys out there. And of course, they're also competing with you, and trying to accomplish the same thing.

The results are some pretty complex products and strategies to try and take advantage of your environment and your competitors. Complex enough that understanding exactly how they fit into the big picture can sometimes be a challenge.

The issue is figuring out what traits are adaptations, and what traits are "side effects" of adaptations.

She gave this example: Male mammals, including humans, have nipples. But they don't need them, they don't use them - how did they evolve? Are nipples an adaptation for males? The answer is no, probably not. However, female mammals definitely need nipples in order to feed their offspring. When embryos are growing in the womb, for a little while both male and female embryos are growing the same way. At one point there is a switch, telling males to go down the male path instead. But remember, males and females shared a common growth pattern for a while. So the fact that males have nipples is sort of a "side effect" of the fact that female mammals require nipples in order to successfully reproduce.

So, you have to ask yourself - did humans evolve perfect pitch for singing, or did we evolve verbal speech, and once we had all the "equipment" required for speech, it turns out that equipment also works well for singing? Did humans evolve to sometimes give birth to savants, or did humans evolve complex brains to help understand their environment and how best to survive, and sometimes disorders of those brains can have pretty amazing results?

She said that questioning our surroundings, and questioning the behavior of other people (are they good or evil? Will they help me or hurt me?), is very helpful to survival and reproduction. The better we understand the environment and each other, the better we can take advantage of those things for passing on our genes. You might then ask, why did humans go the path of having SUCH complex brains, while other animals clearly do ok with less? Remember, all life is competing, and there are lots of different ways that you can get ahead. Big brains are just one of those possible ways, and it's the path our ancestors happened to land on.

I was convinced =) and had never thought about it like that before hand, while some things might not be directly beneficial for our survival, many things are side effects of things that are.

So, just a heads up: if your going to use that argument, you should have a response prepared for something like this if they happen to know what they are talking about.

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

Response:
My friend, you negate existence of something you claim does not exist. Is it not required in the first place for something to exist in order to notice absence of it? Please explain it to me...

[araucaria]

Hi Robert, these people are brain damaged, too far gone. Why waste a minute of your precious time on them? I certainly don't!

Stan

With respect, they are not brain-damaged: you can go right through materialism and come out the other side, meaning that it is a stage in a process. This is not the same as certain woolly 'idealists' who do not make that effort. (Idealism is ambiguous, being related to both 'idea' and 'ideal').

Science (one possible synonym for materialism), notably physics, has been doing precisely that. After splitting particles until they discovered there was no end to it, some scientists have moved on to the science of consciousness. Etc.

Materialism and idealism are basically not opposites when you emerge from a dualist system. Matter as the one form of energy we are best here to experience, is entirely worthy of our attention.

[Anchor]

I show them this sometimes :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7YsuPYYj5jc

[latshaw]

Perhaps some very strong personal events happened to this person which has left them feeling powerless. To find out if that's the case, after that answer I would have simply said...Wow, it's obvious that you feel very strongly about what you are saying. I would be interested to hear how you came to these conclusions. It might help me to gain a new perspective on where you are coming from. Then just listen. Keep nodding your head yes but no verbal response. See what comes out. If the person can only find negativity to relate his reality, when he/she is done talking - just say "Thank you for sharing your feelings with me." Down the road, the person may open up a little more as I am sure this person is used to shutting people up with his rants. When you are receptive to what he/she is saying - they don't know how to respond. Just a suggestion. Good luck,

[Maunagarjana]

I can relate to those people, because I used to be one. The only thing that made me think differently was evidence. So I tend to start talking to people like that about evidence that consciousness is not a strictly brain generated phenomenon. I point out that "correlation is not causation". In other words, I am advancing the idea that consciousness is only correlated with the physical organism of the body, not caused by it. Scientists have not proven causation, and if they know anything about consciousness research, they will have to admit that.

Then I cite evidence of ESP, precognition, remote viewing and so forth that I have memorized to demonstrate that their model of consciousness is not taking into account all the evidence. Then I'd talk about near death experiences, perhaps mention the recently publicized case of Dr. Eben Alexander the neurosurgeon who had an NDE and what he had to say about it.

These types of people will not listen to any talk of psychic mediums or past life regression, so I wouldn't even go there. I might cite some cases from actual research about children who have been shown to have recollections of past lives, including details that can and have been verified. If they start getting insulting towards me, I'll just tell them they are nothing but a fundamentalist and their attitude is an affront to open scientific inquiry. They will try to claim the ground of "More-Scientific-Than-Thou", so I will do the same to them.

These two books have good ammunition to use against these types of people:

(this is a book by UC Berkeley Psychology professor Elizabeth Lloyd Mayer (who passed away some years back) containing evidence of "anomalous cognition")

http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Knowing-Science-Skepticism-Inexplicable/dp/0553382233

(the one below by Victor Zammit is a e-book made available freely by the author.)

http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/4thedition.pdf

And I highly recommend listening to the podcasts on this site below, which are geared towards the scientifically minded, but clearly favors a belief in life after death as being a legitimate position to take:

http://www.skeptiko.com/

[jookyle]

I find the Socratic method to be best.
In that vein, I would ask them how it is working for them? Are they happy to destroy the planet to get what they want? How much is enough? What about the people who don't have the same as them? Does having make them feel superior to them?

It's a false dichotomy to present the ravages of the capitalist individualist system as being one in the same with one having a materialist point of view. You're reducing the term materialism to a capitalist mentality of property and consumerism and not referring to it in the metaphysical sense as presented by the OP. Being a materialist is not the same as being a "material person".


Perhaps some very strong personal events happened to this person which has left them feeling powerless.

I would be interested to know as to why you assume materialism comes from a sense of powerlessness. I would say in most cases, the result is the opposite.

[westhill]

My universe is a hell of a lot more interesting than yours.

[GloriousPoetry]

Life is harsh and then you die........it's too bad we don't even take our bodies with us, you would think we at least deserve to take that after the work and hell we experience here.

I wonder how a materialist would respond?

[Fred Steeves]

I can relate to those people, because I used to be one. The only thing that made me think differently was evidence.

Same here, and it would have been a fool's errand to attempt to convince me otherwise. It's a funny thing, that I now see most forms of spirituality as being every bit as absurd as the materialist point of view. Do either of them bother me? Nah, people do what they want, including myself. Besides, I've pretty much bowed out of the convincing game. I mean really now, I'm not actually convinced of all that much myself...(LOL)

Cheers,
Fred

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

I can relate to those people, because I used to be one. The only thing that made me think differently was evidence.

Same here, and it would have been a fool's errand to attempt to convince me otherwise. It's a funny thing, that I now see most forms of spirituality as being every bit as absurd as the materialist point of view. Do either of them bother me? Nah, people do what they want, including myself. Besides, I've pretty much bowed out of the convincing game. I mean really now, I'm not actually convinced of all that much myself...(LOL)

Cheers,
Fred
And yet you have felt the need to respond, Fred ;) We can do what we want under condition that we want to be concerned with the wellbeing of other beings :) Otherwise it is just willfulness. Not freedom.
I agree that free will to limit oneself in materialism should be respected and not disturbed. The difference starts with who starts the argument?
Just my $0.02 ;)

[Fred Steeves]

I agree that free will to limit oneself in materialism should be respected and not disturbed. The difference starts with who starts the argument?
Just my $0.02 ;)

Well that's just it Robert, who cares who starts it, or why? If someone looks at me and says something like: "I think you're both gullible and delusional in what you think", I can simply say: "Well that's cool, no big deal".

End of argument. http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/images/smilies/newadditions/dirol.gif

[Robert J. Niewiadomski]

I agree that free will to limit oneself in materialism should be respected and not disturbed. The difference starts with who starts the argument?
Just my $0.02 ;)

Well that's just it Robert, who cares who starts it, or why? If someone looks at me and says something like: "I think you're both gullible and delusional in what you think", I can simply say: "Well that's cool, no big deal".

End of argument. http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/images/smilies/newadditions/dirol.gif
If it really is not a big deal why bother to respond at all? Would not it be better to completly ignore the issue? Go your way no word uttered. Or would it be a sign of disrespect? Why bother to show any respect to anybody? Does being respectfull to others defines someones spirituality?
Sorry Fred i've made such a "big deal" of your kind presence here...

[Fred Steeves]

If it really is not a big deal why bother to respond at all? Would not it be better to completly ignore the issue? Go your way no word uttered. Or would it be a sign of disrespect? Why bother to show any respect to anybody? Does being respectfull to others defines someones spirituality?

Hmmm, perhaps you've just put your finger on the pulse of the entire matter there Robert. As a basic example, there have been numerous times in my life when people have shown me both patience and respect, when I absolutely did not deserve it. We have a way of remembering these kindly acts when/if we go do some growing up, and it's only right to pass it on.

There is a term I'm liking more and more these days, "grace under pressure", that if properly demonstrated, can later be of cause to make another aspire to develop that same trait in themselves. Only problem is, that it's easier said than done.... http://www.bigtenfever.com/forums/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Cheers Robert! http://www.bigtenfever.com/forums/images/smilies/cheers.gif
Fred

[latshaw]

I would be interested to know as to why you assume materialism comes from a sense of powerlessness. I would say in most cases, the result is the opposite.


In ref to above question: I have found that there is no term of "allness" in how people react or feel, so you can approach the situation with either approach. As you said..'In most cases'...you would say the result is opposite. It is my personal preference to approach people the way I stated in my original post. I think in this case, It appeared to me the question was related to an individual who was a "material" person and that it was not referring to "materialism". If I am incorrect in that assumption - then "oopsie" - my bad!! If my assumption was correct and it was about a "material" person....I will have to stay with my original answer. I was just trying to give an example for one friend to another - not a psychological, philosophical, or scientific answer. When people inter-relate they just care if someone is truly listening to them...not just hearing them.

Thank you for your question. Latshaw

[Beren]

Response:
Why have you chosen to believe in materialism?

Hah! This is the low kick in the nuts (absolutely allowed and desired in the game of life)

:wizard:

[T Smith]

I asked a materialist friend of mine once, given his understanding of the universe, to calculate the odds his accidental electrochemical nervous system came into being, by random, and, as a result, so happened to spark his accidental experience of consciousness in the infinitesimal slice of time called "now" relative to the beginning of time and to the end of time. In other words, if his experience of the "now" is roughly an eighty year span (give or take a decade or two), what are the odds he so happens to be conscious exactly in the now (not before now or after now) in that quantifiable moment, if every other moment of time represents darkness and unconsciousness?

This is actually a quantifiable probability, and mathematically less probable than winning the lottery every drawing of the year followed by being hit by lightening after winning every drawing of the year.

Just a little something to contemplate....

[Youniverse]

Yes it's probably best to grin and walk away. But if you are cornered and decide to engage them why not point to quantum physics, the place where science and spirit merge. And since materialists usually are in love with science and think it's the answer to everything, use their own tools against them. This is what guys like D'Souza did in handling Atheists like Hitchens and others. I would finish by adding, however, that I respect their opinion, but someday they may feel different. And when they direct that sentiment back to me I smile and say "Yes, indeed."

[The23rdman]

Materialism isn't the problem so much as the fundamentalism. If they show a willingness to have an adult discussion on opposing points of view I will happily do so and admit where I do not have answers, but if they idolise their models then I either smile and move on or short circuit them with a spontaneous koan. :)

Edit: On occasions I have been known to lose my temper and call them an idiot too. :eyebrows: