Why argue with someone that is saying the only thing they can say

[RichardChad]

Physicalism (materialism) is intended as a very general claim about the nature of the world, but by far the most discussion of physicalism in the literature has been in the philosophy of mind. The reason for this is that it is in philosophy of mind that we find the most plausible and compelling arguments that physicalism is false. Indeed, as we will see later on, arguments about qualia and consciousness are usually formulated as arguments for the conclusion that physicalism is false. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

[john doe]

And how can you go on entertaining these bizarre ideas in the face of all the evidence against?

[hatsoff]

Physicalism (materialism) is intended as a very general claim about the nature of the world, but by far the most discussion of physicalism in the literature has been in the philosophy of mind. The reason for this is that it is in philosophy of mind that we find the most plausible and compelling arguments that physicalism is false. Indeed, as we will see later on, arguments about qualia and consciousness are usually formulated as arguments for the conclusion that physicalism is false. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Why are you quoting this?  What relevance has it to your thread?

[Hawke123]

Physicalism (materialism) is intended as a very general claim about the nature of the world, but by far the most discussion of physicalism in the literature has been in the philosophy of mind. The reason for this is that it is in philosophy of mind that we find the most plausible and compelling arguments that physicalism is false. Indeed, as we will see later on, arguments about qualia and consciousness are usually formulated as arguments for the conclusion that physicalism is false. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Why are you quoting this?  What relevance has it to your thread?

Clearly, he is in dire need of a trip to the atheist reorientation camp. ;p

[apophenia]

How is it possible for a real materialiist to say anything other than "well, the theist has no more ability to freely choose to believe in theism than I have to freely choose to not, so it's pointless to argue"

Because a change in the environment can cause a change in beliefs about the world.  If the theist were forever determined to choose theism in spite of what facts are presented to him, then you might have a point.  But changes to a person's understanding of the facts can lead to changes in a person's beliefs, even if those changes are determined.  Thus the motive to present arguments, on the chance that doing so might change the theist's mind.  I fail to see how this is at all controversial.  At the moment I encounter the theist, perhaps his prior thoughts constrained him to being a theist, but when I enter the scene, it's not a predetermined conclusion that his beliefs and choices will remain the same.  Because I am an animal that feels emotions, I am motivated to do things which supposedly will further my interests.  I'm here on this forum half as a proof of concept, that the experience will not change my views, and half curiosity about what leads others to the theistic conclusion.  I am open to the possibility of being changed, but that will only occur if I am presented the right reasons for changing.  This is all still perfectly determined.  I consider it in my interests to engage, regardless of whether I was determined to come to that conclusion or not.  I cannot predetermine the outcome simply by assuming that it is predetermined.  I must go through the process to determine the outcome.

[hatsoff]

Physicalism (materialism) is intended as a very general claim about the nature of the world, but by far the most discussion of physicalism in the literature has been in the philosophy of mind. The reason for this is that it is in philosophy of mind that we find the most plausible and compelling arguments that physicalism is false. Indeed, as we will see later on, arguments about qualia and consciousness are usually formulated as arguments for the conclusion that physicalism is false. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Why are you quoting this?  What relevance has it to your thread?

Clearly, he is in dire need of a trip to the atheist reorientation camp. ;p

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have been so flippant in the other thread.

[RichardChad]

And how can you go on entertaining these bizarre ideas in the face of all the evidence against?

Evidence against what? Theism?

Very typical response, "materialism is true because theism is false" kind of thing. The problem is that's faulty logic.
I don't see atheists actually ever embracing the truth of materialism.

[RichardChad]

Physicalism (materialism) is intended as a very general claim about the nature of the world, but by far the most discussion of physicalism in the literature has been in the philosophy of mind. The reason for this is that it is in philosophy of mind that we find the most plausible and compelling arguments that physicalism is false. Indeed, as we will see later on, arguments about qualia and consciousness are usually formulated as arguments for the conclusion that physicalism is false. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Why are you quoting this?  What relevance has it to your thread?

Clearly, he is in dire need of a trip to the atheist reorientation camp. ;p

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have been so flippant in the other thread.

no worries : - )

[hatsoff]

Physicalism (materialism) is intended as a very general claim about the nature of the world, but by far the most discussion of physicalism in the literature has been in the philosophy of mind. The reason for this is that it is in philosophy of mind that we find the most plausible and compelling arguments that physicalism is false. Indeed, as we will see later on, arguments about qualia and consciousness are usually formulated as arguments for the conclusion that physicalism is false. -- http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

Why are you quoting this?  What relevance has it to your thread?

Clearly, he is in dire need of a trip to the atheist reorientation camp. ;p

Sorry, I probably shouldn't have been so flippant in the other thread.

no worries : - )

That comment was for Hawke, not you.  I still want to know the reason for your quote at the top of this page.

[Emuse]

If there is a naturalistic answer then I would say that neuroplasticity offers some vital clues.

[RichardChad]

How is it possible for a real materialiist to say anything other than "well, the theist has no more ability to freely choose to believe in theism than I have to freely choose to not, so it's pointless to argue"

Because a change in the environment can cause a change in beliefs about the world.  If the theist were forever determined to choose theism in spite of what facts are presented to him, then you might have a point.  But changes to a person's understanding of the facts can lead to changes in a person's beliefs, even if those changes are determined.  Thus the motive to present arguments, on the chance that doing so might change the theist's mind.  I fail to see how this is at all controversial.  At the moment I encounter the theist, perhaps his prior thoughts constrained him to being a theist, but when I enter the scene, it's not a predetermined conclusion that his beliefs and choices will remain the same.  Because I am an animal that feels emotions, I am motivated to do things which supposedly will further my interests.  I'm here on this forum half as a proof of concept, that the experience will not change my views, and half curiosity about what leads others to the theistic conclusion.  I am open to the possibility of being changed, but that will only occur if I am presented the right reasons for changing.  This is all still perfectly determined.  I consider it in my interests to engage, regardless of whether I was determined to come to that conclusion or not.  I cannot predetermine the outcome simply by assuming that it is predetermined.  I must go through the process to determine the outcome.

None of that addresses the fact that the atheist treats the theist as if they could have done otherwise.

It also ignores the fact that on materialism you don't freely choose to do anything, so it's irrational  (on materialism) to say something like " I'm here on this forum because I ... ", on materialism you could have done nothing other. On materialism, the fact that you were going to post that on this forum was established when the initial conditions of the universe were established. Nothing else could have happened given those conditions.

[RichardChad]

That comment was for Hawke, not you.  I still want to know the reason for your quote at the top of this page.

Because the atheist claiming to be a materialist nearly always starts talking about "consciousness" , "sentience" and the like.

[RichardChad]

If there is a naturalistic answer then I would say that neuroplasticity offers some vital clues.

How?

[Rostos]

How is it possible for a real materialiist to say anything other than "well, the theist has no more ability to freely choose to believe in theism than I have to freely choose to not, so it's pointless to argue"

Because a change in the environment can cause a change in beliefs about the world.  If the theist were forever determined to choose theism in spite of what facts are presented to him, then you might have a point.  But changes to a person's understanding of the facts can lead to changes in a person's beliefs, even if those changes are determined.  Thus the motive to present arguments, on the chance that doing so might change the theist's mind.  I fail to see how this is at all controversial.  At the moment I encounter the theist, perhaps his prior thoughts constrained him to being a theist, but when I enter the scene, it's not a predetermined conclusion that his beliefs and choices will remain the same.  Because I am an animal that feels emotions, I am motivated to do things which supposedly will further my interests.  I'm here on this forum half as a proof of concept, that the experience will not change my views, and half curiosity about what leads others to the theistic conclusion.  I am open to the possibility of being changed, but that will only occur if I am presented the right reasons for changing.  This is all still perfectly determined.  I consider it in my interests to engage, regardless of whether I was determined to come to that conclusion or not.  I cannot predetermine the outcome simply by assuming that it is predetermined.  I must go through the process to determine the outcome.

But even if the environment changes, and the belief stays the same, then essentially "it has gone through to the keeper".


Consider a flood, you realise that your house is about to be flooded and you put sand bags to protect the house, yet the flood still breaks through the sand bags. It is simply the forces of physics at play here.

Much like when a theist or an atheist hears arguments for and against God, under determinism, neither party can rationally affirm the evidences and conclude what they believe in because of the validity of the argument.

[Identity Crisis]

On materialism/physicalism, all mental phenomena are identical with material interactions and as such are entirely governed by the laws of physics. Predictability, it's what allows science to exist as a discipline.

Under that view, the thought you are having at this moment can be no different given the arrangement of all of the particles in the universe immediately preceding that "thought".

So, why do materialists argue with anyone? Why is the thought of arguing with a tree that it shouldn't have grown a leaf irrational? Why is the thought of arguing with a supercomputer that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion it did irrational, but arguing with a person that it shouldn't have come to the conclusion they did rational?

Can it ever be rational to argue with any entity that is doing the only thing it can do given the current arrangement of particles in the universe?


Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all phenomena, including mental phenomena and consciousness, are identical with material interactions.

Materialism is closely related to physicalism, the view that all that exists is ultimately physical. Philosophical physicalism has evolved from materialism with the discoveries of the physical sciences to incorporate more sophisticated notions of physicality than mere ordinary matter, such as: spacetime, physical energies and forces, dark matter, and so on. Thus the term "physicalism" is preferred over "materialism" by some, while others use the terms as if they are synonymous.

Given determinism, the determinist argues with the non-determinist because he was determined to. You seem to be wanting to say that it's inconsistent for the determinist to do so because arguing assumes that the person being argued with could come to believe otherwise. But that's not inconsistent with determinism. This very argument could bring about you believing that determinism and arguing are compatible.