# Materialism and Faith **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 30, 2003, 11:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585 "2003-01-30T11:19:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/61 "2003-02-02T20:03:35Z")
I never fail to be impressed with Stanford’s philosphy pages. They are really well-done, and I eagerly await all the additions they have outlined in the future. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/62 "2003-02-02T20:13:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **Jesus taught that God is spirit.** So can we quit beating around the bush and take the bible as your theology and conception of supernatural? \*\* > [@](#): > > And why should your faith in Nogod supercede my faith in God?\*\* I don’t have a faith in “Nogod”, whatever that is. Not believing in god is different from believing there is no god. If I see weird lights in the sky and every prosaic explanation I can come up with can be shown false, I am not justified in concluding that they were UFOs piloted by aliens from a distant planet. The only conclusion I can draw is that I don’t know what those lights were. In the case of god, not only has no one offered proof of what the “strange lights” are, but I haven’t even seen any “strange lights” to begin with. Is there a god? I don’t believe in one. I haven’t seen one. I haven’t seen anything that would lead me to conclude one. My tendency for concluding that there is no god does not arise from faith. It arises from the fact that no argument, evidence, or proof has even remotely succeeded in establishing a god. Not to mention that his alleged earthly record is filled with inconsistencies and that he is logically inconsistent. The god of the ontological proof does not prove the god you believe in. Being necessary in all possible worlds is not equivalent to creating the universe, creating life, appearing as a burning bush, being a trinity, or rewarding or punishing with heaven or hell, repsectively. None of the christian theology is backed up by the necessary existence of some being. Look at the link you offered in another thread. Here’s premise #1 and its justification: > [@](#): > > If God exists, He exists necessarily. > Evidential justification: God is defined as the greatest possible being. The greatest possible being would by definition have the greatest possible form of existence (if he exists). Necessary existence is the greatest possible form of existence because it is existence in all possible worlds. “Necessary existence is the greatest **possible** form of existence…” Here’s premise #2 and its justification: > [@](#): > > It is possible for God to exist. > Evidential justification: Again, God is defined as the greatest possible being. If a being is possible, it cannot be impossible. Were it the case that the being was perfect to an extent that is not possible, it would not be the greatest possible being. Given its coherent meaning then, it would be irrational to claim that the greatest possible being cannot possibly exist. (Confer this section.\*\*) > > \*\*Defining God as “the greatest possible being” has a number of interesting consequences. One of them is that it becomes significantly more difficult, if not impossible, to demonstrate that God is not possible. For instance, God is said to have perfect power: omnipotence. But can God create a round square? Can he defy such basic rules of logic? The theist under this definition of God could reply that God is only omnipotent to the greatest possible extent. Thus, this theist could respond by claiming that God cannot do what is logically impossible, but He can do anything that can be done. If a certain level of one of God’s traditional qualities is proved “impossible,” this theist could then lower the bar on that aspect of God down to where that quality is possible, such as from, “God is omnipotent and can do literally anything,” to “God is omnipotent to the greatest possible extent.” So god can’t create a square circle, because that’s impossible. God can only be as great as possible. Why should we accept that existing in all possible worlds is possible? The justification given is that “necessary existence is the greatest possible form of existence because it is existence in all possible worlds.” The possibility of necessary existence is just being taken as a given. You could argue that necessary existence is possible, though the article you provided hasn’t. You could say that, in agreement with Merriam-Webster, a being can be “something that actually exists”. You could then argue that “twoness”, that is the number two would exist in any possible world, so long as there is more than one thing in all possible worlds. So we might choose the empty set instead, that way in the possible world where nothing exists, the empty set will exist as well. But then the empty set will exist and that possible world will be impossible. Well, that’s going to get ugly. However, it doesn’t matter. Suppose you can establish that some thing is able to exist in all possible worlds. That does not imply a god with any meaningful qualities. The proof is useless. It only proves that some entity, perhaps sentient, exists in all possible worlds. And that’s only _if_ it can be proven that existence in all possible worlds is not itself impossible. Since premise #1 is not acceptable as it stands, the argument, even if it is valid, is not sound. It proves nothing. If premise #1 is acceptable, the argument is still meaningless because necessary existence is not theologically meaningful. You could quite literally be proving that the number 1 is god, because that may be the only thing that can possibly exist in all possible worlds. At no point does this argument establish your theology. In fact, since christian theology is logically inconsistent, it follows that the modal ontological argument proves the existence of a necessarily non-christian god! I honestly can’t see what is so great about this modal argument. Graham Oppy, in his article Modal Theistic Arguments, originally published in _Sophia_, concludes that > [@](#): > > …the question of which account of the nature of logical space to accept reduces to a purely non-modal question, viz: does God actually exist? In this context, we can’t use modal intuitions–e.g. judgements based on imagination and recombination–because those judgements already rely upon assumptions about the nature of logical space. But that is just to say that there can be no modal argument for the existence of God. Any modal theistic argument must be question-begging, since it will rely on assumptions about the nature of logical space which can only be supported by the further claim that God actually exists. Sorry, but the proof has no weight. I’m also sorry to have offended you with the use of the word superstitious. But what should I have used? I don’t see how religion is really much different from fear of the number thirteen, opening umbrellas indoors, astrology, or talking with the dead. There are lots of scientists who are religious. Seeing their religion as a supertition hardly makes them any less intelligent. And what’s wrong with taking religion on faith? That makes more sense to me, quite frankly. But to each his own. I would have thought someone who refers to Jesus’s teachings would have eschewed proofs simply because of the Doubting Thomas story. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/63 "2003-02-02T22:40:02Z")
Js\_africanus wrote: > [@](#): > > So can we quit beating around the bush and take the bible as your theology and conception of supernatural? You can stop beating around the bush if you like, but I do not and never have taken the Bible as my theology. Some portions of the Gospels (mainly John) and a couple of portions of John’s letters, maybe, but certainly not the Bible as a whole. In fact, Kahlil Gibran’s _Jesus the Son of Man_ is as meaningful or more so to my theology. My theology and conception of the supernatural is derived directly from teachings of the Holy Spirit. The epistemological connection is immediate, not mediate. > [@](#): > > I don’t have a faith in “Nogod”, whatever that is. Not believing in god is different from believing there is no god. But that is not the case as I have already shown here. Unless you can refute this argument, as I stated it to Hawthorne, there is no difference between “not believing” and “believing not”: The Doxastic Axiom states ~Bp -\> B~Bp; that is, lack of belief that p is true implies belief in a lack of belief that p is true. You at least believe that you lack belief. Applying the preservation principle of neutral epistemologies, your belief in your lack of belief in p preserves your lack of belief in p. That’s why you behave as though ~p were true, since p -\> Bp and therefore ~Bp -\> ~p by modus tollens — lack of belief in p implies that p is false. > [@](#): > > My tendency for concluding that there is no god does not arise from faith. That contradicts what you just said. If you have concluded that there is Nogod, then you believe in Nogod. > [@](#): > > It arises from the fact that no argument, evidence, or proof has even remotely succeeded in establishing a god. Demonstrably false. It has succeeded fabulously with me and with billions of other people — in fact, with most of the people on the planet. Of course, that doesn’t make it true. But neither does your failure to establish what you consider to be sufficient evidence prove it false. You are merely denying the antecedant. You are saying that since God has not appeared to you, He must not exist. That is a fundamental logical fallacy. > [@](#): > > Not to mention that his alleged earthly record is filled with inconsistencies and that he is logically inconsistent. Citing the editorial opinions of other materialists contributes nothing to your argument. All it is saying is that you have formed your opinions from the opinions of someone else. > [@](#): > > The god of the ontological proof does not prove the god you believe in. Being necessary in all possible worlds is not equivalent to creating the universe, creating life, appearing as a burning bush, being a trinity, or rewarding or punishing with heaven or hell, repsectively. None of the christian theology is backed up by the necessary existence of some being. Who said anything to the contrary? Ontology speaks only to the nature of existence. It does not speak to attributes or events. There is no pretense at describing God particulately. > [@](#): > > So god can’t create a square circle, because that’s impossible. God can only be as great as possible. Why should we accept that existing in all possible worlds is possible? The justification given is that “necessary existence is the greatest possible form of existence because it is existence in all possible worlds.” The possibility of necessary existence is just being taken as a given. I have given the proof of necessary existence existing in your offshoot thread. It is a common proof that you can find practically anywhere, including at the Stanford site, and that forms the very basis of S5 modality. > [@](#): > > Suppose you can establish that some thing is able to exist in all possible worlds. That does not imply a god with any meaningful qualities. The proof is useless. It only proves that some entity, perhaps sentient, exists in all possible worlds. And that’s only if it can be proven that existence in all possible worlds is not itself impossible. Again, existence in all possible worlds is not only not impossible, it is necessary. Otherwise, you couldn’t assign X to any value except a single value, such as 5. You couldn’t have algebra at all. The quality of the existence covered by the proof is that it is ubiquitous. You seem merely to be expressing a frustration of vague origin having to do with thinking that you had swatted down Anselm’s ontological proof (and subsequent variants) only to find that when his third premise is corrected and restated properly, the proof holds. That is understandable. You were comfortable in dismissing it and had begun to sit on your laurels. > [@](#): > > If premise #1 is acceptable, the argument is still meaningless because necessary existence is not theologically meaningful. You could quite literally be proving that the number 1 is god, because that may be the only thing that can possibly exist in all possible worlds. Uh huh. I don’t know why you’re bothering with stating that since you’ve already stated that, in your opinion, the conclusion itself is trivial. Why would it matter to you if every inference is true and the whole argument is not only valid but sound? Your mind is already made up and closed. There’s no point in even talking about premise #1. > [@](#): > > At no point does this argument establish your theology. In fact, since christian theology is logically inconsistent, it follows that the modal ontological argument proves the existence of a necessarily non-christian god! You have not established that Christian theology is logically inconsistent. In fact, you have not established what Christian theology is. A link to editorials by atheists does not constitute proof of anything other than that atheists don’t believe in God. And once again, the topic of this thread is materialism and faith. There is no attempt here to establish my theology. And you quoted Oppy from the atheist site: > [@](#): > > Any modal theistic argument must be question-begging, since it will rely on assumptions about the nature of logical space which can only be supported by the further claim that God actually exists. 😃 Well, good heavens! The entire deductive system of logic itself is petitio principii (question begging). That’s the nature of axiomatic systems. If they could prove their own axioms, they would not be consistent. (See Godel’s _On Formally Undecidable Propositions_.) In fact, the whole universe is question begging. You believe what your senses tell you, and yet your senses are themselves a part of the material universe. > [@](#): > > I’m also sorry to have offended you with the use of the word superstitious. But what should I have used? I would recommend that you use what I use when I speak of Spiritus or Xeno or Sentient: we have reviewed the same data and have come to different conclusions. If you must call me something, call me reasonable. Believe it or not, it is possible to hold an opinion or viewpoint different from yours that is reasonably held. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/64 "2003-02-02T23:06:45Z")
**Lib** , I’ve had enough of your attitude. You’re perpetually offended by the slightest remark, yet can’t seem to shake your arrogant and condescending tone. If you want to believe that existing in imaginary worlds qualifies as a meaningful definition of a god, so be it. If you want to argue on an axiomatic system that you haven’t bothered to connect to the real world, fine. If you want to fall for the Swedish Civil Defense Paradox, well it’s your dime. If you want to dismiss the arguments of published professional philosophers of religion as “materialistic editorials”, that’s your right. I won’t be bothering with you anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/65 "2003-02-02T23:15:06Z")
Incredible. I have _cited_ professional atheist philosophers who have said that the modal ontological argument is sound. I only dismissed your atheist cites when they dealt with Christian theology. It is ridiculous to use them as authorities on that. I addressed Oppy’s remark directly. I have no idea why you consider my “tone” to be arrogant and condescending especially since I have repeatedly requested nothing more than equality of integrity between the two of us. Since this is the written word, any “tone” is supplied by the reader. Jesus was right. People do find exactly what it is they search for. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2003, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/66 "2003-02-02T23:24:02Z")
A sound argument isn’t necessarily meaningful. You’re claiming that your beliefs are derived directly from the teachings of the Holy Spirit? You reject the Bible (and other traditional theological works) but claim that billions of people accept your position? And you keep insisting that things can exist in possible worlds. The concept of possibility does not imply existence. The “tone” of speech has as much to do with word choice and conceptualization as acoustics, and is the entirety of implied meaning when in writing. Can’t you perceive your own arrogance? ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/67 "2003-02-03T12:06:36Z")
Sorry, I’m late in replying to your post **Lib**. I was at a wedding in the bush. I don’t deny what you say about the “Doxastic Axiom”, but I do deny that it captures what _I_ meant by belief in my earlier posts. Furthermore, I think it is not what _you_ must have meant in your OP: > [@](#): > > _Libertarian_ > how is it that materialists can ponder its nature, apprehend its approach, and **believe with conviction** that it is in their future, [emphasis added] When I make a guess or a stab or a judgement or return a verdict of not proven, I express something less than a belief, or at least less than a belief with conviction. Tritely, I don’t believe in life after death, but I believe there is no tooth fairy. I think that the possibility of slippage between terms in everyday use and their use as terms of art in a discipline is something that can lead to misunderstanding. I freely admit - as I hope my earlier posts suggest - that at the boundaries of what I think I can comprehend my intellectual and decision-making procedures are suspect. I don’t pretend that my rationality is unbounded. The work of serious philosophers may shed light on these matters. But I don’t expect answers, I expect provocative results which will make me examine the axioms for what is lurking unexpectedly behind concepts previously thought to be well-understood. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/68 "2003-02-03T12:37:24Z")
Who can begrudge a man such a quest for knowledge and understanding? Though we differ quite much in how we look at many things, we are bretheren in that we both continue to look. I’m proud to call you a peer, Hawthorne. As you know, I have learned much from you. It was you whose compelling argument caused me to re-examine my understanding of macroeconomics. I love walking the path of learning with men like you. Thanks for sharing your views in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/69 "2003-02-03T16:17:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by js\_africanus \* > \*\*If you want to believe that existing in imaginary worlds qualifies as a meaningful definition of a god, so be it. I find it incredibly doubtful that you do not give serious weight to possibility all throughout your day, and in fact that your primary concerns are ever about actual events and things, rather than considerations of possible events and things. > [@](#): > > If you want to argue on an axiomatic system that you haven’t bothered to connect to the real world, fine. Frankly, I would imagine the English word “possible” is a real good start. If you want more, I would argue that the testing of theories is a much better one. Possibility plays a huge role in all human endeavors. I would be quite interested to hear your dismissal of it. Granted, many of us here have been around that Mulberry bush with **Lib** regarding modalities and their interpretations, but I am not going to casually dismiss possibility as having no weight worth mentioning. So bother with me, **js\_africanus**. ---
**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/70 "2003-02-03T16:19:00Z")
Excessive bolding aside, I won’t have guaranteed computer access until Wednesday night. Any delays in response are due to that. ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/71 "2003-02-03T18:48:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by erislover \* > **I find it incredibly doubtful that you do not give serious weight to possibility all throughout your day, and in fact that your primary concerns are ever about actual events and things, rather than considerations of possible events and things.** I guess I’m not sure what you’re saying here. A quick glance at my profile should assuage any fears that I don’t spend an unhealthy amount of time pondering and hoping for a world that has unfolded in a fashion at least slightly different from our own. Yet I don’t see how those worlds would be possible. What’s done is done. If X happened in 1950 instead of Y, the world would be different, but we can’t exchange X for Y, so that world isn’t possible. Inasmuch as free will exists, multiple future worlds are possible. I certainly think about those. I think about how much better it would be if the anti-free traders would see the error of their cause. Or if the lotto would rack up to half-a-billion dollars and I would win it. Or that I might get a good job. Or any of the other more-or-less infinite ways the world can unfold. While there is a probabilistic potential for those possibilities to exist, they do not, and, at the appropriate time, only one will obtain. What other types of possibilities should I be considering? What other possibilities are extant right now? > [@](#): > > **Granted, many of us here have been around that Mulberry bush with Lib regarding modalities and their interpretations, but I am not going to casually dismiss possibility as having no weight worth mentioning.** I didn’t think I did. It’s a tight argument and it took me quite a bit of time to really consider it. At first it seemed like an attempt to produce god by way of logical fiat, much like the older ontological arguments. However, I am familiar with existence proofs and if a median voter can be proven, then why not something else? I offered most of my reasonings, I had to abandon a few of them because they were clearly losing, and over all, I don’t think the rebuttals carried the day. ---
**Author:** ![TVAA](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c57346/32.png) [@TVAA](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TVAA)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/72 "2003-02-03T20:26:08Z")
But why should be consider possibilities to exist? I think we should consider the possibility that the concept of probability is merely an artifact of our ignorance. As per the Empirical Philosophy thread, I forward the position that things which do not interact with us aren’t real to us. The concept of “alternate worlds” then becomes meaningless. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2003, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/73 "2003-02-03T21:18:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > \*\* > The Doxastic Axiom states ~Bp -\> B~Bp; that is, lack of belief that p is true implies belief in a lack of belief that p is true. You at least believe that you lack belief. Applying the preservation principle of neutral epistemologies, your belief in your lack of belief in p preserves your lack of belief in p. That’s why you behave as though ~p were true, since p -\> Bp and therefore ~Bp -\> ~p by modus tollens — lack of belief in p implies that p is false. > \*\* I dont see how this proves anything. It seems to me what you’re trying to show is that ~Bp-\>B~p. If you seriously think this is the case, I dare you to claim this is true for all p. I, personally, have no problem with ~Bp without B~p, in more instances than where p=existence of God. \*\* > [@](#): > > That contradicts what you just said. If you have concluded that there is Nogod, then you believe in Nogod. > B] where has **js** concluded that there is Nogod? ---
**Author:** ![js\_africanus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@js\_africanus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/js_africanus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/74 "2003-02-04T00:44:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ludovic \* > \*\*where has _js_ concluded that there is Nogod? \*\* I’ve never concluded anything about Nogod, whatever that is. I said that while I don’t believe in any god, I do tend to conclude there aren’t any because of what appears to be a paucity of evidence\*. (Figuring that ghosts or gods or constellations that interfere with our lives should leave a pretty big footprint, so to speak, and assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that lack of predicted/expected evidence is itself evidentiary. Though I didn’t phrase it that way before.) I generally see that conclusion as quite provisional and not elevated to the point of belief, for lack of a better word. To put another way, while I’m generally in the “I don’t know one way or the other” stage, I’m leaning toward the “there’s nothing supernatural out there” postion. I can’t tell you off hand where I wrote it, though it was in a single post. \*And some seeming contradictions in Christian theology. ---
**Author:** ![Lucki\_Chaarms](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lucki\_Chaarms](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucki_Chaarms)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/75 "2003-02-04T02:30:34Z")
I just have to point out that I love the Brain:Consciousness::God:Universe analogy, simply because I like to imagine what would happen if God got high. On second thought, that concept should make us question the ability of our brains to establish logical order, in that we know that all the rules change when we mix up the chemicals in there, and who’s to say that our blend is right, or that we’ve ever experienced the correct blend. Logic is based on observed patterns, and goes on the assumption that things will continue in those observed patterns. But what if you’re observing for patterns with the wrong brain? Oww. Stupid philosophy. LC LC ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/76 "2003-02-04T03:14:11Z")
> [@](#): > > I just have to point out that I love the Brain:Consciousness::God:Universe analogy, simply because I like to imagine what would happen if God got high. There’s an old joke about this of which the punchline is, “Where did you think the duck-billed platypus came from?” 😃 But yeah, “thinking” for humans is affected by blood and brain chemistry, fatigue, what we’re able to work with from sensory data – “Can you conceive of an absolutely empty universe?” “Yeah.” “What’s it look like?” “I can’t see anything in it – that’s the point.” “No, the point is that you can’t conceive of one, because your viewpoint was present in it for you to have visualized it, so it wasn’t absolutely empty.” – and lots of other stuff. One of the things about God as many of us conceive Him is that He’s able to comprehend things as they really are – from Jupiter’s kilometer-wavelength radio-wave radiation to what is the big burden on the heart of the guy who walked by you at 8:03 yesterday morning with a smile on his face – and how to relieve that burden (in about three months, he’ll meet **jarbaby** ’s best friend’s cousin, and she’ll be the medicine he needs). > [@](#): > > Ah! There’s the rub. > > Your desires and mine might be vastly different. What I ask from you is your respect of my desire. I am willing to respect your desire to accumulate and manipulate material goods so long as you are ethical in your dealings. And in fact, that respect is so deeply ingrained in me that I take that ethic as my user name. Can you respect that I desire something else? My thirst cannot be quenched by material water, but only by the Living Water. My hunger cannot be satisfied by material bread, but only by the Bread of Life. My treasure is not in my brand new Saturn Ion. My treasure is in the Love Everlasting. He satisfies my in every regard. > > On what basis then is my worldview less successful than yours? **Lib** , I’ve been remiss in not sharing with you, and others, something I wrote a month ago, and used privately a few times. That something follows; I hope you like it: > [@](#): > > **Essay: I Am Rich** > I am the richest person I know. > > Never mind that most of my worldly assets are in the form of two checks from **Scotticher** representing gifts from people, most of whom I’ve never met, and a car and computer given me or financed by two other Doper couples. > > Never mind that I have no gainful employment at the moment. (Workin’ on it…) > > Never mind that I have no children of my body, and besides my wife no one that qualifies for naming in “he leaves behind” in an obituary. > > Those are important, but secondary. > > I continue to have the steadfast love of a woman who’s been by my side, friend and then wife as well, for forty years of fire and flood, living out the “for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health” and focused on me and my happiness, sometimes to her own detriment. > > I have the love of two young men\* who consider me more their father than the men who begat them, and the joy of watching the faces of their children light up with joy whenever Uncle Dave comes to visit. > > I have been the recipient of an outpouring of love and good wishes, and actual physical gifts of money and goods, mostly from people I’ve never physically met but have come to know online (and some who lurked and came to like me without my knowledge). As has been pointed out a dozen times in the MPSIMS thread, I have been the object of a real-life miracle here. > > In this I have the proof of God’s providence, and the hope of a brighter tomorrow. And a demonstration of one of the cornerstones of my theology – that He does His work through the hearts and minds of those who love, not by playing arsonist with shrubbery or cleaving miscellaneous bodies of water. > > Almost certainly alone of all people, I had the joy of starting 2003 by reading a new Heinlein story (thanks to **Fenris** ). > > I have been [Santa Claus’s dinner guest](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=154462) Props to anyone who guesses the identities of the other people in that account. > > Lois McMaster Bujold made one of her most heroic characters use for his intended last words, “All true wealth is biological” – this addressed to the son he discovered he had when the son was about 22. (An echo, for me, of getting “my kids” when they were 16 and 17.) > > I propose a slight modification to that: > > All true wealth is spiritual. It consists in lovingkindness towards others and the lovingkindness of them towards you. It consists in the little things that mean the most when all is said and done. “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” > > And by that measure, my coffers are running over. > > - Yeah, we took in three boys. I omit Michael here since he did have a fairly good relationship with his father, who was like mine a taciturn man who showed his caring in always being there, not necessarily in anything demonstrative, and his and my relationship was founded in that mutual understanding and love of our fathers (aside from Barb and me, he’s the only living person who really knew my father), rather than my standing as a surrogate father to him. ---
**Author:** ![Triskadecamus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@Triskadecamus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Triskadecamus)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 7:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/77 "2003-02-04T07:46:48Z")
I still don’t understand how there can be beauty in the view of a strict materialist. It can’t even be skin deep. It has only imagined existence. You are not beautiful until I see you. After that you can be beautiful even after you die, because I remember your beauty. But it isn’t real. It has no material reality. No force. Well, maybe one millihelen. Heck, maybe an entire Helen. And what of the beauty of an entirely non-existent thing? Or the love of things that never were, but were loved no less for the lack of reality? There is no true freedom. Yet nations have raised up, and been thrown down for the love of freedom. Love? Love itself cannot be said to exist, in a material sense. It has no force, no substance. It is not real. But it can make the real world change. It can move objects, and throw down walls. Ich bin ein Berliner. You don’t have to look all the way to God to find superstitions to sneer at. Loyalty, honor, and even the precious logic itself are not real. They have no substance, no force, and no existence save in the minds of those who believe in them. Why does one thing exist, which must exist only in the hearts of men, yet another thing cannot exist, because it must live there as well? Minds? Show me these minds. I know no such thing as minds. Brain and brain, what is brain? Tris ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/78 "2003-02-04T08:02:24Z")
Beauty, honor, and loyalty all exist in the thoughts of thinking beings. If there were not thinking beings–which, so far as we yet know, means if there were no human beings–those things would not exist. On the other hand, electrons or rocks existed for billions of years before there were humans (yes, I know, no one _called_ them electrons or rocks, but they were still there); if we all died tomorrow, even if there are no other thinking, language-using, symbol-assigning beings anywhere in the Universe, there would still be electrons and rocks. No atheist would deny that God (and the gods and unicorns and fairies and Santa Claus) exists in the same sense as beauty or honor–or for that matter, Superman, the Starship _Enterprise_, Sherlock Holmes, or Horatio Hornblower–as something inside the minds of human beings. However, theists contend that God exists in the same way electrons or rocks exist–externally to us, and even if God had never made us or decided to annihilate us all tomorrow. At least, I _thought_ that’s what theists contended. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 12:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/79 "2003-02-04T12:17:15Z")
**Ludovic wrote:** > [@](#): > > It seems to me what you’re trying to show is that ~Bp-\>B~p. I don’t know what advice to give you to help you avoid such random perceptions in the future, other than perhaps to read the lines themselves rather than the interstices. **Poly** A beautiful essay! Thank you. **Buck wrote:** > [@](#): > > Beauty, honor, and loyalty all exist in the thoughts of thinking beings. If there were not thinking beings–which, so far as we yet know, means if there were no human beings–those things would not exist. On the other hand, electrons or rocks existed for billions of years before there were humans (yes, I know, no one called them electrons or rocks, but they were still there); if we all died tomorrow, even if there are no other thinking, language-using, symbol-assigning beings anywhere in the Universe, there would still be electrons and rocks. That speaks to phenomenal and noumenal existence. Interestingly, whatever truth-value might be assigned to your argument is itself noumenal. The very point you’re making would not be true without a perceptive being and so is objectively moot unless, of course, noumenal existence is the reality and phenomenal existence is the illusion, in which case your point is objectively false — beauty and honor (just like the reasoning you used) exist in a real sense, while rocks and electrons are merely perceptions of electrochemical discharges in your brain. In other words, since truth is noumenal, there is no way that both your argument is true and rocks are real. ---
**Author:** ![hawthorne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@hawthorne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hawthorne)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2003, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585/80 "2003-02-04T14:14:05Z")
A handy hint for those of us fighting above our weight:[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=noumenal](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=noumenal) I agree with this bit: > [@](#): > > _Libertarian_ > That speaks to phenomenal and noumenal existence. Interestingly, whatever truth-value might be assigned to your argument is itself noumenal. The very point you’re making would not be true without a perceptive being but then I trail off a bit. Isn’t the “objectively” in “objectively moot” [otiose](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=otiose) [yes, it is my favorite word]? > [@](#): > > In other words, since truth is noumenal, there is no way that both your argument is true and rocks are real. Isn’t the point of this thread that the rocks might be real and the argument might be true but that materialists have no business making the argument? On the other hand, will you grant us that in the absence of what _we_ think is any case for any non-materialist world [i.e please take that on board for the purposes of argument], adopting a supposition of the prior and continuing existence of rocks is an understandable (sensible? reasonable?) “default assumption”? Whilst it is unjustified (since it’s unjustifiable), what would you have us do, absent a personal supernatural revelation? The retort “but your stance leaves many - _possibly_ important - questions unanswered” is not _as such_, to me, a criticism. I just don’t know enough to _have_ a position. I’m not entirely comfortable that that leaves me acting _as if_ I believe nothing immaterial exists, but that’s the way it seems to go. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/materialism-and-faith/151585.md?page=5)