I usually don't try to psychoanalyze why other people believe as they do.
Their reasons are as valid to them as my reasons for my beliefs. This is
merely an attempt to point out to psychoanalyzing materialists the futility
of such efforts.
Of course, merely pointing out a
person's *motivation* does not mean that his claims are false.
But, if you show that they *are* false, that his arguments are
invalid and or based on false premises, and he *still* insists on
his claim of a materialistic universe, then something non-cognitive is going
on, and it is well that we be aware of this.
We see the same pattern repeated many times. Materialists have all had their
arguments shredded right in front of their eyes (figuratively
speaking), but not a one of them has said, "Oh, yes, I see
clearly now. I will go see if I can find something better or give
up my claims." Instead, they become "Stepford Intellectuals,"
robots for the cause, re-iterating arguments that have long
since rotted in the bright light of observable facts and clear
logic, sometimes making bizarre attempts at patching them
up (without removing the basic fallacies).
The basic error is the attempt to make matter primary, and matter (the
entirety of
whatever exists) a secondary that is either subject to, or
knowable by their own mind, *without* the need
for independent *cognitive* validation. But, since the pre-
conceptual realization that matter is primary is never
really killed or fully suppressed, the person is (pre-
conceptually) aware that the beliefs he has imposed on reality
by means of his mere choice and feelings are not reliable and
may be crucially wrong. Thus, he is in a state of anxiety about
his relationship to the world, a state that he tries to assuage by
ever more diligent faith in his *chosen* (not cognitively
validated) beliefs.
Because he is in a cognitive quandary about all the basics of
philosophy (or would be if he considered them at all), and
because his mind is largely furnished with more or less blindly-
accepted conventional materialistic beliefs, he has no rational idea that any
purpose in life exists or what it might be. But, his anxiety and
confusion drives him to deny any purpose. Having stocked his
own mind with philosophical nonsense, and being
psychologically deeply insecure, he will normally seek
something more stable, more reliable, something as pitiful
as himself to vest his happiness in. Commonly, it will be his supposed
ability to understand the universe, but not always. Some
people will make remarks like, "I believe in God but I
believe everything that happens has a materialistic cause." -- by
which they mean a purpose determined by Homo sapiens or the laws of physics.
(Quantum physics is best passed over quickly.) Some will take up causes such
as professional Darwin defenders.
But, in all of these cases, such people are seeking the security they cannot
find in a universe with unanswerable questions. They cannot live with such
insecurity.
Why is it not logically possible? Because they are *seeking* this
concept of materialism to satisfy *their* need to deny a purpose in life.
They fear the existence of something they might not understand and thus are
driven to declare nothing incomprehensible can exist.
Why does it *matter* that unanswerable questions might exist ? Clearly,
it matters because one already *has* a need to live in a predictable universe.
This is a serious philosophical error. It is not correctable by
means of a little tweaking here and there. It puts the person in
a situation that is impossible to resolve without abandoning the
situation entirely and starting over.
But few will start over. Instead, they remain not-so-blissfully
driven to defend materialism.
If they find what they take to be a purpose in life (i.e their own mastery
of the universe), any threat to that belief may
very well be taken as a threat to their philosophy, or,
psychologically and usually subconsciously, a threat to their
very lives (because they have invested themselves such faith in their own
intellectual superiority , and cannot imagine a life without it).
Since the person has already given up reason in a *quite*
fundamental way in the process of accepting the notion that
faith in their own intellectual processes is a magical way of knowing things
or a magical way of making the world match one's beliefs, it is a relatively
small
step to give it up with respect to any scientific issue that seems
to involve their imagined lack of purpose in life. If "ID" (or
anything else) seems to threaten them (i.e., their " superior intellectuall
processes"),
they will automatically (or very nearly so) adopt virtually *any*
rationalization that seems to support their view of their view that purpose
in life cannot exist.
Thus, one may come across Darwinists proselytizers who openly
admit that all they have going for their belief materialsim is faith, but,
since they have faith in materialism (and, of course, faith in the
materialism is faith), it doesn't bother them that people of other
religions *also* have faith, but in a quite different God than materialism.
Why?
Because, like those others, they have faith that *their* faith is
sound, while the faith of the others is wrong (and, of course,
that's exactly how the *others* feel about *their* faith as well).
The *absolute* absurdity of such a position seems almost
*never* to sink in, because they have faith that it's *not* absurd
when *they* do it (which, of course, is the *same* faith those
*others* have in *their* faith).
With reason *this* far gone, it is no wonder that materialists,
and the like are willing to forego it with respect to something as
relatively unimportant as science, if doing so will appear to
protect or promote their "purpose," their precious world-view
that gives their lives (in their view) some sort of "feeling of ability to
control the universe."
Bertvan
http://members.aol.com/bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Dec 05 2000 - 10:58:03 EST