Hi
  I was wondering about the question of materialism, shouldn’t that be on the list, given advances in physics over the last 100 years?  It is not that the scientific method does not work, in fact it works so well that I am currently transforming thoughts into characters on a computer screen that will be converted into energy and information and (rematerialized) before your very eyes.

Perhaps, the scientific method is simply immature with regards to the list of subtle energies which are the primary focus of the Center for Inquiry.  Not that I have any issue with questioning these items, I just think that the belief that reality is physical should be added to the list of items now demanding extraordinarily proof. 

Science works incredibly well, but it is also challenging the paradigm that reality is physical. 

  References :

  Materialism : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
  Atomic Theory : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
  Quantum Theory : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics
  CERN :  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
  String Theory : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory
  Subtle Energy : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_(esotericism)

Firstly, welcome to the CFI Forum, daytripper.  Hope you enjoy yourself here.

Secondly, as regards your point, I’m not sure I understand where you’re coming from.  The scientific method over the past centuries has done nothing more profound than demonstrate time and again that there is nothing more than physical reality; or, if you like, that everything we see around us is produced and explained by physical laws and processes.  Your references (with the exception of the last, which is pseudoscientific nonsense) are quite good at helping establish the point.

The fact that your computer works in the way you describe is only further evidence that our knowledge of physical, material processes is quite deep and extensive.

Yes - Science is challenging the paradigm that reality is physical in nature.
  No - matter is primary and mind or spirit is secondary, a product of matter acting upon matter.

I would have to answer no to both of those, they are both bad choices…science is reinforcing the paradigm that reality is physical in nature.

I agree with Asanta.  I can’t vote on that poll because BOTH the listed choices are incorrect.  If this is a subtle way of forcing atheists to make a metaphysical choice, it’s not going to work.

Occam

I’m not sure what you mean by your question, but whatever the case, your wording causes me to agree with the others.  You second statement sounds like Gnosticism, which does talk about matter and spirit, but in a mythological manner and not a scientific one.  The first statement is, as asanta pointed out, misstated.

Well, I’m happy choosing #2. It may not be entirely accurate but it’s accurate enough.  Matter is primary; ‘mind’ and ‘spirit’ are dependent upon physical materials.  They don’t and can’t exist without them.

Sure, it’s always possible that in the future we’ll find out we were wrong about that, but the evidence up until now is quite overwhelming. Almost as overwhelming as that the Earth goes around the Sun or that life evolved by darwinian evolution.

Gotta go with the crowd here and say the wording of the answers is faulty. Science has done nothing if not reinforce the idea that the universe runs in a purely materialistic (in the physical sense, not so much in the economic sense…although that might be debateable, heh) way. Far from challenging that paradigm, it’s piles heaps of evidence towards on what was already fairly sturdy ground.

daytripper - 08 December 2010 10:20 AM

Hi
Science works incredibly well, but it is also challenging the paradigm that reality is physical. 

Welcome daytripper.

Is the basis of science, mind dependent reality, or is the bases mind independent reality? The more we know scientifically can’t answer this because we might just be understanding mind dependant reality more deeply, or we might be understanding mind independent reality more deeply.

We’re in the same situation, as far as science is concerned, today, as we were 1500 years ago, on this subject.

I don’t see how scientific advances can help in either direction.

Stephen