Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Pure Materialism vs Pure Metaphysicalism
DaftChris
Spiritually conflicted. Not of this world. Veteran
Okay, I've been reading cosmological arguments from both sides (atheist and religious) and there is a relatively consistent pattern with the two stances: one being materialistic and the other being metaphysical.
I've mentioned before that, while I'm not a theist per se, I'm not an atheist. I used to be, in fact my very first post on this site was about an atheist being interested in Buddhism, but the more I search and learn, the more I don't believe that this is all that we experience. Does that mean I think a separate entity made the universe? Not necessarily, but likewise I don't believe we are here due to a random expansion of compressed energy.
That being said, when reading these opposing arguments on the origins of our universe, the idea of both a purely materialistic or metaphysical universe are equally unfavorable.
One one hand, with materialism, there is no ultimate meaning. Yes, we add intristic value to our lives, but in the grand scheme of things, we are pointless. No goal to strive for; we are just born, we live following the laws of our society and then we die and rot. The end.
Conversely, with a universe created by God (let's assume the Abrahamic variety), there may be the reward (heaven) to strive for, but we have to bend to the will of a very angry and hypocritical God. Our free will is compromised and we lose what makes us human. Don't follow the rules and live your life your own way? Burn in Hell. Believe in every single thing that God bestows? Rewarded with heaven, but lose what individuality that there may be.
I suppose there is no real point to this post. I was just in the mood to hear all of your thoughts.
I've mentioned before that, while I'm not a theist per se, I'm not an atheist. I used to be, in fact my very first post on this site was about an atheist being interested in Buddhism, but the more I search and learn, the more I don't believe that this is all that we experience. Does that mean I think a separate entity made the universe? Not necessarily, but likewise I don't believe we are here due to a random expansion of compressed energy.
That being said, when reading these opposing arguments on the origins of our universe, the idea of both a purely materialistic or metaphysical universe are equally unfavorable.
One one hand, with materialism, there is no ultimate meaning. Yes, we add intristic value to our lives, but in the grand scheme of things, we are pointless. No goal to strive for; we are just born, we live following the laws of our society and then we die and rot. The end.
Conversely, with a universe created by God (let's assume the Abrahamic variety), there may be the reward (heaven) to strive for, but we have to bend to the will of a very angry and hypocritical God. Our free will is compromised and we lose what makes us human. Don't follow the rules and live your life your own way? Burn in Hell. Believe in every single thing that God bestows? Rewarded with heaven, but lose what individuality that there may be.
I suppose there is no real point to this post. I was just in the mood to hear all of your thoughts.
0
Comments
The particular model of God that you reject is also rejected or not believed in, by Christian, Jewish, and Sufi mystics who have penetrated to the heart of their respective systems
They repeatedly exclaim that there IS only God.
Which may turn out to be non different to the Trikaya.
After a while, though, I started reading less about that stuff and more about things like scientific research into the workings of the brain and the work of skeptics who debunk a lot of the stuff I once believed in (e.g., James Randi); and I found myself being swayed into a more materialistic worldview, discounting my out of body experience as a lucid dream and my dreams coming true as mere coincidence, and being skeptical of 'supernatural' things in general.
Nowadays, I've sort of moved more towards the middle, where I'm still skeptical about these kinds of things, but also open-minded about them since much of what science is uncovering these days is quite amazing and almost beyond belief, e.g., check out this Scientific American article about researchers entangling the quantum states of two diamonds and this Wired article about observing quantum entanglement. It's almost as unbelievable as the literal interpretation of rebirth.
As for meaning, well, that's not something I worry too much about anymore. The universe is such a vast and complex place that it boggles my mind, and I simply don't have the intellectual capability to discern a meaning to it or my small place within it. But it's not as depressing as it may sound since I have a lot of things that give my life meaning; and the things in life I don't understand still awe me and pique my curiosity. I just don't spend as much time dwelling on them as I used to.
You'll never find the discarded paint pot or see the scaffolding behind a canvas of stars.
Chemistry is the study of material. These materials have space and mass, which is how a material is recognized. But the scientist is an awareness and 'space'/'mass' wouldn't be anything if nobody were observing.
Metaphysics is also rejected in that there is nothing hidden: form is emptiness and emptiness is form. No increase and no decrease. No purity and no impurity. No path. Having no attainment there is no fear.
You see? Materialsim is a thought. Metaphysics is empty of all dharmas.
What I mean by "pure" materialism and metaphysicalism is this:
Those who believe/know there is absolutely nothing outside of our material world. No God, heaven, no chance of there being a creator to the universe. We are here due to insinuating circumstances and nothing more.
And
Those who believe/know that there is absolutely no chance of there not being a creator to the universe. Everything is because of God's design and if you don't believe in it, you will suffer the consequences.
I began studying religious philosophies such as Christianity, Judaism, and various forms of theistic mysticism trying to understand and connect with that hidden reality, which was there but simply obscured by the complexities of life, the world, and all the things we do to complicate our lives. After time passed, however, that feeling evolved, and while I still felt there was something worth looking for, I began looking for it within myself. And in the process, I started to move away from thinking about this underlying reality as an aspect of a personal, omnipotent, omniscient, creator God.
My beliefs about God then evolved into a type of deism, where God was no longer a personal being, but an impersonal force comprising the universe, as a consciousness permeating the very fabric of the universe itself, connecting all things.
This, too, however, changed and I dropped the notion of God altogether. Whether it was due to my inability to understand and connect with God, theological dilemmas such as the 'problem of evil,' or the lack of evidence which swayed me, I don't know, but the idea of God became less and less important to me and my practice. Around this time, I discovered Buddhism, and found that it gave me a contemplative and spiritual path without having to take a position on, nor rely upon, a creator God I couldn't fathom or seemingly interact with.
Today, I still have feelings of interconnectedness and awe, and when I do, I tend to seek out other spiritual people and places, like Buddhist monks, fellow meditators, Christian churches, or whatnot. And this often sparks some of those thoughts about God that I used to have, and I find myself musing over the idea. But that, too, passes, and all I'm left with is the present moment.
Maybe there could be a successful theistic metaphysics, but not if we suppose that God is fundamental. We would have to go with Sufism, Kabbalism etc., or 'mysticism', and say that there is something prior to God. Then a coherent metaphysics becomes possible.
One problem with pure metaphysics is that it fails to accept empiracal evidence for the physical laws or cycles of how the physical world goes.
Many Atheists acknowledge my view of God but refuse to call it God. I'm not even sure why I capitalise it because I don't see it as a proper noun. Personally, I don't like assuming an Abrahamic view of God when discussing the possibility of God. If God is a personality, somehow I figure it would be a little more enlightened than to be jealous, spiteful and angry.
Plus the idea that it knows everything. This makes no sense to me and never has. If God knows everything and is all powerful (whatever that really means) then it is all very pointless indeed.
Or the idea that it created everything... To create everything, one would have to start the chain of cause and effect. However, creation is an action and so deciding to create implies that cause and effect is already happening. Not only that but an eternal creator wouldn't just "decide" one day to create, it would be eternally creating.
It makes no sense to have a true starting point or first cause in either scenario.
God to me is a process of discovery. Waking up one aspect at a time.
We are not beings, we are simply being.
Just my view from here.
I think Carl Sagan had a nice mixture of the two in his perspective.
"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself"
--Car Sagan
In Buddhism we start from the revelation of this 'ultimate'.
If you experience (as opposed to mind chatter) either cod or no cod, what of it . . . There are bigger fish to fry than God envy.
Materialism is a hypothesis and metaphysical assertions are in reality hypotheses. Both leave us with what are fundamentally insoluble problems although we imagine otherwise. This is the problem with theology, too, which is a more tangible, simpler form of metaphysics.
As human beings, our responsibility is to choose our values, and to then try live by then.
Luckily for us, Buddhism is a great help in this endeavour.
Your view is the most common one by far, but I am arrogant enough to believe it is false. Metaphysics proves that all extreme views are logically indefensible, and this leaves only the correct solution. It is this logical analysis that led me to Buddhism in the first place. I knew nothing at all about it at the time but converted within ten seconds of discovering that it is the rejection of all extreme metaphysical positions, having already decided on the basis of logic alone that this is the only solution to metaphysics that works.
I sometimes think that Buddhists sell themselves short by not pointing this out more regularly.
A metaphysical statement is an hypothesis if we do not know it is true. If we do know, however, then it is no longer an hypothesis. So such statements may or may not be hypothetical.
Or so it seems to me...
So logic can lead us to water, it just cannot make us drink. Logical anlaysis is only rational thinking, after all, and the Buddha does encourage us to apply this to his words.
Philosophy becomes fairly simple once one gets the hang of this point about extreme positions. All worldviews except one can be dismissed quite easily, which means only one worldview needs to be studied. It gives one great confidence in discussions with sceptics to know that ones philosophical view is the only one that cannot be refuted in logic, and that this can be proved. Nagarjuna's metaphysics does not get the attention it deserves I would say, but I must admit he doesn't make it easy to understand.
I never know how much to say about all this, since it sends many people straight to sleep.