Refuting Materialism

“Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.” - Michael Ruse

Quotes and comments;

- This is the kind of quote (from e's) that annoys me. Ruse has no business saying such a thing. He has no basis for saying it; no foundation for such an utterance.
- the usual definition of m. states that the u. consists solely of matter in motion. Where then is there room for belief? Do atoms and electrons believe in things? do they have beliefs? This is rubbish. Matter acts, it does not (and cannot) believe.

Believe;
a. ' To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
- so i ask you; does matter think? reason? argue? consider? etc. Of course not. Therefore I conclude materialism is a fallacious view of the universe. (At best it is woefully inadequate.)

- and Ruse talks about the 'quest' for understanding the the origins of the world and of mankind. Again, he has no business talking in this way. Matter doesn't engage in quests. [Quest; the act of seeking; search; as to go in quest of game; in quest of a lost child; in quest of property.] Matter isn't seeking anything; and most assuredly isn't seeking understanding. Therefore we conclude m. is a false view of reality.

- Ruse speaks of moral demands. Again, a materialist has no basis for speaking of morals, or of moral obligations. Matter acts mechanically; it cannot do right or wrong. Matter just is; it is under no obligations. Only persons have obligations. therefore we conclude m. is a false view of the universe.

- we'll let you come up with your own explanation of why it's illegitimate for a Materialist to speak of people as being spiritually dead.

- the fact Michael Ruse has delivered himself of such a noble sentiment shows us that people can't live in terms of materialism; they cannot live consistently in terms of what the philosophy states and claims. (There isn't one consistent Materialist on the planet.)

- the fact Ruse feels these sentiments is all the evidence he needs that he is not merely matter in motion.

Notes;
1. Reference; 'The Harvard Gazette [2006] held a panel discussion on “How Do We Teach Evolution.” Richard Lewontin sees the first priority as convincing the doubters that animals do evolve. Reporter Bob Brustman ended with a surprising quote from Michael Ruse: “Whether you’re a believer or not, the quest to understand this magnificent, frightening, exhilarating world that we live in is just as much a moral demand laid upon us as ‘love your neighbor.’ People who don’t want to know the way the world is are spiritually dead.”
2. The obvious question I guess (at least to some) is this; 'how is it materialists can speak this way? how is it they speak as if they were theists?' There isn't a single answer. Some people of course talk this way out of a desire to deceive people. Some people live in two mental worlds as it were; somehow managing to write books as if they believed in materialism, but then living as if they didn't. Some people seem unaware of the implications of Materialism. To some extent this 'double mindedness' stems from growing up in a culture that still retains vestiges of a biblical Christianity. To some extent this is a matter of language. Our languages are deeply theistic; and there really aren't ways to express (communicate) a self-consistent materialism. (I don't know how such a language could even be created.) To some extent this 'split mindedness' is a matter of all men bearing the image of god. (However slightly or radically altered you might think that image now is.)

- to some extent (perhaps a great extent) this is a matter of reasoning forward from a basic presupposition. (i.e. of materialism.) If one's basic assumption is that all that exists is matter, then one concludes, ''well, gee whiz, I guess matter (in its guise as man) can think, can engage in a quest for understanding, can care about origins, etc. (One can't reason backward from 'spiritual' man to materialism; one can only reason forward from an assumption of materialism. When one does this a person ignores the evidence in favor of a theory.)

- there is no scientific theory that even pretends to explain how it is atoms and chemicals can care about the ultimate origins of man and universe. It's surely clear that the desire to understand, that the feeling of obligation, etc. aren't 'things' extant in matter. But this is all the materialist has to work with. If he's honest he has to say these things exist in the structure of matter; but he knows this isn't the case. His only escape then is to say that the desire to understand is an 'emergent' quality. This seems to satisfy many m's but I see it as weak and illegitimate. This is like saying personal and spiritual qualities spring into existence out of nothing; but this is just what materialism denies. The human qualities ruse referred to can only exist because of a 'not-natural' arrangement of matter. (This in our day we call information.) We all know this, but some of us refuse to admit it.