Materialism (A mad world)

by dhw, Monday, June 18, 2012, 18:44 (4323 days ago)

Tony and I have cleared up our misunderstandings over the balance between different world views, but meanwhile he has branched out into the dysfunctionality of materialism, and so I'm again starting a new thread.-TONY: [...] a unilateral world view based solely on materialism or naturalism is dysfunctional, and [...] the evidence of that dysfunction is all around us.-You give excellent examples of how we are ruining the rain forest, destroying whole populations of animals, and even poisoning ourselves. My own particular bugbear is nuclear power, because we stand to destroy not only ourselves but also future generations of humans and other animals over a vast stretch of time. It is indeed a mad world.-What follows is not a response to your post but a rider to it. Materialism has two very different meanings, and I think it's wrong to equate them. One is greed for material wealth, and the other is the philosophical theory that matter is the only reality. We needn't argue about Dawkins (his writings make it clear that he's a humanist), but Romansh's comment that D. is not "promoting rape and pillage of the environment" is, I think, a very important one in the context of this particular discussion. There is among certain types of religious people (I'm not talking about you, Tony) a deep conviction that philosophical materialism goes hand in glove with immorality. I find this view pretty obnoxious. Humanity's greed and concomitant destruction of the world we live in has nothing to do with philosophical materialism. It has been in evidence as far back as history can go, and is deeply rooted in human nature. The sheer scale on which it operates today has everything to do with technology and ... in my view ... nothing to do with philosophy. Actually, it's always fascinating to visit the stately homes of those who made their money from slavery and other exploitative, not to say murderous industries, and admire the beautiful chapels they built for themselves. In any case, the idea that lack of belief in God leaves people free to behave immorally is absurd. As a social animal, man HAS to have morals or society cannot function. Besides, I'm sure all of us know religious people who are insensitive to the feelings of others, and non-religious people who are kindness personified. And so my plea is to keep human greed separate from philosophical explanations of life and the universe.-As for maintaining balance, I expect each of us is convinced that his/her balance is just right ... whether theist, atheist or agnostic. And since none of our current contributors are fundamentalists, we may all be right. Some people can balance perfectly on one leg, whereas others need two!