Materialism as a religion

I did not see it as an ad hom, but rather as relevant to the question at hand - can he be trusted to give an informed opinion, given that he is willing to grossly subvert the process to serve his faith?

Linda

Perhaps most troubling was that he was serving pretty standard proponent fare. The outrage generated by introducing Christianity into a discussion belies the perception of shared and borrowed material.

That said, my exposé may have also shed light on why he didn’t bring up the subject of NDEs.

Perhaps most troubling was that he was serving pretty standard proponent fare. The outrage generated by introducing Christianity into a discussion belies the perception of shared and borrowed material.

That said, my exposé may have also shed light on why he didn’t bring up the subject of NDEs.

As I have said over and over, both here and at Skeptiko, why can't we consider what a person says first instead of dismissing his views because of his ideological position? Why should a Christian be any less able to debate philosophical or scientific subjects than an atheist? Both have ideological baggage. In my ideal world, both ideologies would be erased from our culture and matters both natural and supernatural, physical or non-physical, could be discussed without prejudice. But this ideal world is unlikely in my lifetime so I have to accept that there will be Christian philosophers as well as atheists. Religious scientists doing valuable work alongside their atheist colleagues.

In this case, by all means point out where Koons' religion has directly led him to a certain conclusion but I would expect you to show that a non-Christian could not have arrived at the same conclusion. From what I can see, he has summarised the problems of materialism (as expounded by the 23 philosophers represented in his book) in a way that is religiously neutral. Atheists might not like it because most are ideologically committed to materialism and philosophically opposed to dualism or idealism but that is, again, ideological baggage and, as has been pointed out several times, many of the same problems with materialism have been exposed by an atheist philosopher: Thomas Nagel. Talk about outrage - just look at the reception that book received from his fellow atheists.

Before he starts pontificating on the afterlife, perhaps he might explain how those laws of physics explain the living. How do the laws of physics account for feelings, such as suffering or joy. Which particles would he posit as having the ability to feel?

That statement is a giant red flag for me DOGMA AHEAD!!!!

Some interesting observations on scientism from a science historian (and chemist) in this talk. 

Atheists might not like it because most are ideologically committed to materialism and philosophically opposed to dualism or idealism but that is, again, ideological baggage and, as has been pointed out several times, many of the same problems with materialism have been exposed by an atheist philosopher: Thomas Nagel. Talk about outrage - just look at the reception that book received from his fellow atheists.

I suggest the reason this is likely true is do to that obvious state of success of the material perspective. Can any other philosophical perspective claim any success.

Before he starts pontificating on the afterlife, perhaps he might explain how those laws of physics explain the living. How do the laws of physics account for feelings, such as suffering or joy. Which particles would he posit as having the ability to feel?

Why single out emotions?  Take Love for example. That is entirely a chemical reaction caused mostly by oxytocin. Did you know that it is in one state responsible and necessary for a mother to be able to bond with her newborn baby?
Remember the very first time you fell in love all of the physical reactions you felt were all caused by certain chemicals created by your brain. And remember how as your love relation progressed those feelings faded to be replaced by loving feelings of contentment. Why chemicals cause certain states of mind is a mystery for sure, but why imply the answer lays with metaphysics?

I suggest the reason this is likely true is do to that obvious state of success of the material perspective. Can any other philosophical perspective claim any success.

Obvious state of success?

At what?

Sure, for explaining much of the physical reality we see (and some we can't see) around us.  That is for sure and I don't see it being debated much here.  However, it has been a complete failure in terms of answering the biggest questions that human beings have been asking for ages.  All materialism conjectures is a meaningless universe with no purpose, no objective morality, etc.

Through the latter lens I would argue a number of alternative philosophies have been more "successful" simply based on human experience.

However, it has been a complete failure in terms of answering the biggest questions that human beings have been asking for ages.  All materialism conjectures is a meaningless universe with no purpose, no objective morality, etc.

It doesn't even extend so far as that. Materialism offers no possibilities for feeling, for awareness, for experience. It is unable to even ask those questions, "the biggest questions that human beings have been asking for ages", let alone answer them.

[Laird]

Materialism offers no possibilities for feeling, for awareness, for experience. It is unable to even ask those questions, "the biggest questions that human beings have been asking for ages", let alone answer them.

Wait, let's not go too far. Materialism can come in the form of a reductionism that doesn't deny consciousness; instead it says that consciousness reduces to matter. No matter that we might (and I do) find this to be a ridiculous assertion/proposition, it does (however unreasonably) leave open the possibility of asking questions predicated on feeling, awareness and experience, including the biggest questions.

Wait, let's not go too far. Materialism can come in the form of a reductionism that doesn't deny consciousness; instead it says that consciousness reduces to matter. No matter that we might (and I do) find this to be a ridiculous assertion/proposition, it does (however unreasonably) leave open the possibility of asking questions predicated on feeling, awareness and experience, including the biggest questions.

I've heard such claims. But I never saw any explanation or evidence to substantiate such claims.

Perhaps this echoes the title of this thread?